California commodifies women and babies for gay men

[collateral]

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

And I think I was mostly reminding myself that there’s no point arguing with people determined to promote the trafficking of human infants to order.

It's pretty well established in the West I think that buying and selling people, in general, is not on?

And I would say also that it is well established that giving away children is not on.

But part of the issue is perhaps that there is a tendency on the progressive left to assume that these kinds of basic social foundations are all useless and passe, unless you can prove otherwise.

Though I'd have thought that even the progressive left is solid on not buying and selling people.

As a thought experiment, if it was possible to grow a baby to the point where it is typically born, without use of a woman’s body, would you have an issue with this?

Though I'd have thought that even the progressive left is solid on not buying and selling people.

Apparently not.

Yes.

because human infants are people. And the very real connections to the maternal body in which we are grown matter for many things in infant development.

Human life is not a commodity.

Indeed, battery production of children in tubes is a truly dystopian concept.

There’s also no point arguing with someone who claims they know several surrogates. If that’s true, then the likelihood is that they are an active participant in the reproductive exploitation of women sector, in one way or another.

Though I'd have thought that even the progressive left is solid on not buying and selling people

Ehhhh. As well as this shit they are all over "sex work is work" which gives cover and legitimacy to human traffickers. I think they're mostly against accurately describing the buying and selling of human beings.

You've definitely never birthed a baby have you shade? To even ask that question.😣

I think you’re right.

That particular group seem especially keen on euphemism and determined to avoid anyone accurately describing anything.

I really have to wonder about the vat-baby enthusiasts. Presumably they know what happens when babies are left in cribs with their nutrition needs met, but no emotional bonding to and minimal physical contact with their caregivers.

Why can't they extrapolate this knowledge to their vat-baby fantasies?

I haven’t read that twitter thread as it’s so long, does it have deploying hypothetical/ mythical examples as a “thought experiment” in an attempt at then securing a “it’s merely a short hop” argument which goes in their favour?

Having read several research papers it seems there is some small risk to surrogate children of adjustment and development issues. However, these are not any greater than numerous other influences we deem acceptable risk.

Therefore, I’m not of this discussion - can’t see what the fuss is about beyond “cos men” and latent homophobia.

A cynic might conclude that male dominated movements social / political movements are concerned about human trafficking if/ when adult males are at risk of it.

I don’t care if you are convinced or not.

If you want to think I’m homophobic you are most welcome to do so.

The risk is anyway heightened for women who are surrogates where both the egg and sperm are donated, as apparently is very often the case (as in the egg is not her own).

Other people have much more eloquently detailed the distress of the baby.

I don’t think all women who are surrogates are poor exploited saps. But the majority seem to be financially motivated - which is not excellent when it comes to creating a human being.

You’re “not of this discussion” but you know several surrogates and you’ve read several research papers on the level of risk of development delay or behavioural problems with the children removed from their mothers, post-purchase?

Sounds like the sort of research a buyer would do.

I don't think it is a small risk, but even if it was small, is that okay? How much risk to the health and well being of the baby is okay to you? Given that any level of risk is totally unnecessary. These babies are not already here, needing families, with people trying to find the best solution. They are created in order to be exposed to potential harm. Is that okay with you? Is it okay to risk harm to babies in order to meet the wishes of adults?

Now can you see what the fuss is about? It's about causing harm to babies in order to please adults. And I can't speak for others but to me it makes no odds whether the purchasers are straight or gay, whether they have fertility issues or not, whatever about the adults I'm not fussed. This should be about the babies, not about the wants of adults.

Can people please, please stop throwing around the 'why can't they just adopt?!' line?

Adoption is not some sort of consolation prize for people who cannot have their own biological children. The vast majority of parents - whether gay or straight - should not adopt and would be wholly unsuited to them. The notion that any well-meaning person who could be a decent enough parent generally should just go pick up a child for adoption is deeply insulting.

I haven’t read that twitter thread as it’s so long, does it have deploying hypothetical/ mythical examples as a “thought experiment” in an attempt at then securing a “it’s merely a short hop” argument which goes in their favour?

I don't see that exact move there, but it does advocate for making the issues as abstract as possible and arguing about them to the point people feel exhausted with the discussion...

You can go on google scholar and find several excellent scientific non partisan studies that outline the risks within about 5 seconds.

So if no risk at all is acceptable, to you?

Therefore, would you ban people who have the risk of passing on various genetically transmitted conditions (even if the risk is very small) from procreating?

Kind of like eugenics, no?

I don’t think it matters much whether the couples are gay or straight, using another woman’s body to incubate a child is something I find difficult to justify in any situation whether the straight couple are considering surrogacy for reasons of convenience or for infertility .

What this article makes clear however that gay men commissioning a baby are using the weasel word , or lie to be more accurate, of infertility to cover over the fact that they see a woman’s body as a disposable commodity , a means to an end to satisfy their own needs. No one is saying gay men can’t parent, can’t adopt, can’t foster, of course they can, but to claim infertility as a justification for surrogacy is farcical. Who are they kidding, us or themselves?

( btw worth reading the article below about the La Leche League. Male entitlement causing issues there too. Weird how it keeps on happening isn’t it, almost as though there was an agenda)

I haven't noted a lot of that on this thread, though it usually crops up on these threads to some degree.

Most people who want to use surrogacy don't want to adopt, which is lucky cos most of them wouldn't get approved in the UK (in the US where you can basically buy a new born from the mother is a different matter). Because the people who use surrogates do so centering their wants. Adopters need to be able to centre the best interests of the child.

Do me a favour, eugenics

Did you not want to answer my question - is it okay to risk harm to babies to please adults?

Do me a favour, eugenics

Did you not want to answer my question - is it okay to risk harm to babies to please adults?