Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Surrogacy, Same-Sex Parenting, & Slavery

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 2:43:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Allow me to tell you a story about a musician with a great talent for music and performance but perhaps not for much else. I'm talking about Elton John. As you may know, Elton John is in a "civil partnership" with his "husband" or "partner," whatever-his-name-is. Sometime after they embarked on their "civil partnership," Elton John and his partner decided that they wanted a child. Their union obviously was not going to result in a pregnancy. So they did some shopping around. Shopping around for what? Well, for some woman's eggs. Not just any woman's eggs, mind you, but likely those of a woman who might have attended an Ivy League and who otherwise had desirable genetic traits. So they likely put on ad on the newspaper (or whatever it is British people do to advertise that they want to buy someones' eggs) and found a willing candidate in some financially-needy college student seeking whatever would help to pay off her tuition at Oxford or King's College (or perhaps on the other side of the pond at Princeton, Georgetown, Yale, etc.). Having agreed to sell her eggs, the woman was probably taken to a reproductive technology facility where her egg(s) her surgically extracted. She was, of course, probably told that she'd be "helping out" Elton John achieve his dream and whatnot. But she was probably not informed of the various medical risks associated with egg donation (not to mention any of the ethical issues associated with egg donation) as the reproductive technology industry, like the abortion industry, is a business, after all, and profit will always outweigh any possible risks unless they result in less profit. After buying her eggs, they did some more shopping around. This time, however, they searched for a paid womb (viz. a surrogate). They likely found an eager candidate in a poor Latin American or Indian woman (or perhaps, again, even a woman in college who was struggling to pay for her tuition). So with a promise of lucrative compensation, they dragged the surrogate off to another reproductive technology center and impregnated her with the eggs of the woman they had earlier bought. In the name of profit, they likely also forwent to inform the surrogate of the ethical, medical and legal problems associated with surrogacy. So Elton John and his partner flew back to London to wait for 9 months, probably calling the surrogate every so often to check up on their investment. And, after 9 months, they flew to meet with the surrogate whereupon they handed over a wad of cash in exchange for a child that they paid for and they took him back to London (or wherever) so that he may be intentionally deprived of a relationship with a mother simply because two adults "really wanted" a child so that they could pretend to be the happy heterosexual couple and parade their bought child around on a stroller, showing all the elite Londoners and Hollywood-ers that they were finally a complete and happy family now that they had successfully bought a child.

Take, for a brief moment, into account the gross injustices that have happened on Elton John's path to acquire a baby: the rich took advantage of the poor (e.g., Elton John and his partner, no doubt millionaires, used their money to coerce poor women to do their bidding to get a child); two women literally sold themselves and their bodies, with possibly terrible consequences for her psychological, physical, emotional and moral health and her future fertility; yet, worst of all, a child was literally bought as one would buy any other commodity, as one might buy an exotic pet. It doesn't end there; not only was this child bought, but, upon being born, he was intentionally deprived of a relationship with a mother simply because two adults "really wanted" to do so.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the asinine and childish desires of a couple of immature adults take precedence over the best interests or needs of a child. It tells us that the desires of adults is more important than the needs of children to know their mother and father and to have a relationship with them. It tells us that the only two conditions that are necessary for intentionally detaching a child from his biological mother and father, his heritage, his origins, and to then intentionally deprive him of a relationship with a mother or a father are (i) a desire to do so, and (ii) the money to pay for it to happen. Anyone with half a brain cell in their head should be able to notice just how grossly unjust it is to intentionally put a child through this mess. We shouldn't intentionally design families in which a child is deliberately detached from his mother and father and even then further intentionally deprived of a relationship with a mother or a father simply because some asinine homosexual couple "really wanted" to take care of a baby and selectively forget that they not only bought him as one would buy any commodity and that they intentionally detached that child from his mother and father.

Thus it doesn't seem to me at all unfair for Lopez to characterize this as same-sex couples buying children like "chattel" or to otherwise compare this to slavery of some sort, for, after all, a human being is being bought. At any rate, at this point, supporters of same-sex"marriage" and same-sex parenting respond with saying that opposite-sex couples often buy children as well via IVF and so that, because opposite-sex couples can do this, same-sex couples should also be able to do this. But three point ought to be made here: (I) opposite-sex couples need not resort to surrogacy or sperm banking or indeed IVF in order to have a child insofar as the union between a man and a woman is, in principle, ordered towards procreation, whereas same-sex couples have no other option (besides perhaps adopting, which I find likewise problematic for reasons that needn't concern this topic yet) because their union is obviously not ordered towards procreation; (II) when a same-sex couple buys a child, they will inevitably deprive that child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both his biological mother and father) whereas an opposite sex couple can, at the very least, provide a child with both a mother and father; and (III) neither same-sex couples nor opposite-sex couples should be able to buy a child because no one should have a so-called "right to have a child" insofar as this amounts to nothing more than the treating of human beings and children as objects and commodities to be bought if wanted and disposed of if undesired. This last point is crucial. It will often be presented by those sympathetic to same-sex parenting, surrogacy, sperm-banking, "LGBT issues," and so forth as a sort of argument from consistency to the effect that, if opposite-sex couples can buy children like commodities, then same-sex couples should also be able to do so. To which one ought to respond in several ways: (I) it is not at all a strong argument to claim that, because one injustice is happening (i.e. opposite-sex couples buying children like commodities), another injustice ought to be permitted (same-sex couples being allowed to buy children like commodities). (II) Even granting that allowing opposite-sex couples to buy children like commodities commits one to allowing same-sex couples to buy children like commodities as well, an antecedent question must first be asked, namely: should humans be able to be bought and sold like commodities? To which the answer, again, is "absolutely not." This just means that the buying of children like commodities ought to be condemned regardless of who is doing it, be it an opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple or a celebrity like Elton John.

Thoughts?
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 3:12:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 2:43:00 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Allow me to tell you a story about a musician with a great talent for music and performance but perhaps not for much else.

Oh, gee. This should be good.

I'm talking about Elton John. As you may know, Elton John is in a "civil partnership" with his "husband" or "partner," whatever-his-name-is.

No, they're married now. Keep up with the times.

Sometime after they embarked on their "civil partnership,"* Elton John and his partner decided that they wanted a child.

*Marriage.

Their union obviously was not going to result in a pregnancy. So they did some shopping around. Shopping around for what? Well, for some woman's eggs. Not just any woman's eggs, mind you, but likely those of a woman who might have attended an Ivy League and who otherwise had desirable genetic traits.

Oh, sh!t. Heterosexual people do this too, don't ya know?

So they likely put on ad on the newspaper (or whatever it is British people do to advertise that they want to buy someones' eggs) and found a willing candidate in some financially-needy college student seeking whatever would help to pay off her tuition at Oxford or King's College (or perhaps on the other side of the pond at Princeton, Georgetown, Yale, etc.).

I'd like to see that ad. I think you're full of sh!t, but even if that's true, I don't take issue with it.

Having agreed to sell her eggs, the woman was probably taken to a reproductive technology facility where her egg(s) her surgically extracted. She was, of course, probably told that she'd be "helping out" Elton John achieve his dream and whatnot.

Actually, that may or may not be true. The identities of those seeking egg donors do not necessarily have to be disclosed in either the United States, or the United Kingdom.

But she was probably not informed of the various medical risks associated with egg donation

And this is where you reveal the extent to which you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me introduce you to the concept of "informed consent."

Here's a government website that outlines what it is:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

She would have had to sign something like one of these:

http://www.thedoctors.com...

And since I'm pretty sure you're too lazy to actually click and read those links, let me break it down for you:

Mosby's Medical Dictionary defines "informed consent" as:

"permission obtained from a patient to perform a specific test or procedure. Informed consent is required before most invasive procedures are performed and before a patient is admitted to a research study. The document used must be written in a language understood by the patient and be dated and signed by the patient and at least one witness. Signed consent should be obtained by the person performing the procedure. Included in the document are clear, rational statements that describe the procedure or test. Also required is a statement that care will not be withheld if the patient does not consent. Informed consent is voluntary. By law, informed consent must be obtained more than a given number of days or hours before certain procedures, including therapeutic abortion and sterilization, and must always be obtained when the patient is fully competent."

Informed consent is contrasted from implied consent, which is:

"the granting of permission for health care without a formal agreement between the patient and health care provider. An example is an appointment made with a physician by a patient with a physical complaint; it is implied that by making the appointment the patient gives consent to the physician to make a diagnosis and offer treatment."

Implied consent is not sufficient, however, for the kind of procedure described in your OP -meaning that whoever this Ivy League brainchild was would have to be informed of all risks associated with the procedure in question, would specifically be instructed of her legal rights and contractual responsibilities in this process and would be briefed in all aspects of the procedure and transaction. This is the case in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

(not to mention any of the ethical issues associated with egg donation) as the reproductive technology industry, like the abortion industry, is a business, after all, and profit will always outweigh any possible risks unless they result in less profit.

You make all these idiotic assumptions, and you have no idea what you're talking about 9/10ths of the time you post things.

After buying her eggs, they did some more shopping around.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

This time, however, they searched for a paid womb (viz. a surrogate). They likely found an eager candidate in a poor Latin American or Indian woman (or perhaps, again, even a woman in college who was struggling to pay for her tuition).

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

So with a promise of lucrative compensation, they dragged the surrogate off to another reproductive technology center and impregnated her with the eggs of the woman they had earlier bought. In the name of profit, they likely also forwent to inform the surrogate of the ethical, medical and legal problems associated with surrogacy.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

So Elton John and his partner flew back to London to wait for 9 months, probably calling the surrogate every so often to check up on their investment.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

And, after 9 months, they flew to meet with the surrogate whereupon they handed over a wad of cash in exchange for a child that they paid for and they took him back to London (or wherever) so that he may be intentionally deprived of a relationship with a mother simply because two adults "really wanted" a child so that they could pretend to be the happy heterosexual couple and parade their bought child around on a stroller, showing all the elite Londoners and Hollywood-ers that they were finally a complete and happy family now that they had successfully bought a child.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 3:16:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 2:43:00 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Thus it doesn't seem to me at all unfair for Lopez to characterize this as same-sex couples buying children like "chattel" or to otherwise compare this to slavery of some sort, for, after all, a human being is being bought. At any rate, at this point, supporters of same-sex"marriage" and same-sex parenting respond with saying that opposite-sex couples often buy children as well via IVF and so that, because opposite-sex couples can do this, same-sex couples should also be able to do this. But three point ought to be made here: (I) opposite-sex couples need not resort to surrogacy or sperm banking or indeed IVF in order to have a child insofar as the union between a man and a woman is, in principle, ordered towards procreation, whereas same-sex couples have no other option (besides perhaps adopting, which I find likewise problematic for reasons that needn't concern this topic yet) because their union is obviously not ordered towards procreation; (II) when a same-sex couple buys a child, they will inevitably deprive that child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both his biological mother and father) whereas an opposite sex couple can, at the very least, provide a child with both a mother and father; and (III) neither same-sex couples nor opposite-sex couples should be able to buy a child because no one should have a so-called "right to have a child" insofar as this amounts to nothing more than the treating of human beings and children as objects and commodities to be bought if wanted and disposed of if undesired. This last point is crucial. It will often be presented by those sympathetic to same-sex parenting, surrogacy, sperm-banking, "LGBT issues," and so forth as a sort of argument from consistency to the effect that, if opposite-sex couples can buy children like commodities, then same-sex couples should also be able to do so. To which one ought to respond in several ways: (I) it is not at all a strong argument to claim that, because one injustice is happening (i.e. opposite-sex couples buying children like commodities), another injustice ought to be permitted (same-sex couples being allowed to buy children like commodities). (II) Even granting that allowing opposite-sex couples to buy children like commodities commits one to allowing same-sex couples to buy children like commodities as well, an antecedent question must first be asked, namely: should humans be able to be bought and sold like commodities? To which the answer, again, is "absolutely not." This just means that the buying of children like commodities ought to be condemned regardless of who is doing it, be it an opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple or a celebrity like Elton John.

Thoughts?

Here are some basic facts:

You have no idea if this happened, you have no evidence for the claim's you're making and what you're doing here is dangerously close to libelous.

Like all the other threads you've made about this and other topics that exist within the greater penumbra of gay rights, what you say is wholly lacking in evidentiary grounding, your conclusions are spurious and ill founded and your opinion is based on nothing other than your distaste for homosexuality.

This thread is nothing less than an act of self disgrace, such that it more harshly condemns you than those who you are seeking to lambast.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 3:46:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yes, people have children for silly reasons, and occasionally this is done at the expense at others. The question, though, is whether this is a charge that is specific for homosexuals. What part of this is not true of heterosexual couples?

Assuming that all parties consent, where is the largest issue? It is, for you, that parents are required to be biologically both male and female. So, a question that I think comes up needs to be addressed. Suppose a man is effeminate. He marries a woman. She gets pregnant, and she has a child. Is that child going to have a bad upbringing, by your standards? Or if the woman has masculine personal traits?

Suppose now that there is a masculine man, and an effeminate man, in a homosexual relationship who have a child. Are they going to have a bad upbringing?

Either both children are fine, or both are bad, if I understand the arguments correctly. Because the general argument seems to be you need a culturally male, and culturally female, parent in a relationship. If true, though, then you can have two men who are culturally male and culturally female. Similarly, you can have a culturally male woman in a relationship with a culturally male man. This question always seems iffy when someone answers it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 3:46:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I utterly fail to see any real difference between what Elton John did and what anyone, heterosexual or not, who can't have kids of their own does.

So since all this condemnation applies just as well to any other couple, I have to ask why it is that you're so against the notion of childless couples having children.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:22:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 3:16:10 PM, YYW wrote:

Here are some basic facts:

You have no idea if this happened, you have no evidence for the claim's you're making and what you're doing here is dangerously close to libelous.

Like all the other threads you've made about this and other topics that exist within the greater penumbra of gay rights, what you say is wholly lacking in evidentiary grounding, your conclusions are spurious and ill founded and your opinion is based on nothing other than your distaste for homosexuality.

This thread is nothing less than an act of self disgrace, such that it more harshly condemns you than those who you are seeking to lambast.

You've missed the entire point, YYW. Of course I don't know the exact details of how Elton John bought a child. For all I know, the surrogate he contracted may have been from Algeria instead of Honduras. For all I know, Elton John and his partner might have waited in Cancun while the surrogate they contracted brought the baby to term. Etc. The exact details of how Elton John and his partner bought a child is irrelevant. What is relevant, however, is that they did, in fact, buy a child. [Elton John and his partner] merely serves as a simple literary tool, if you will, that can be replaced with any male homosexual couple. After all, given basic facts about biology and reproductive technology, we can make very accurate guesses as to how, generally speaking, a male homosexual couple obtains a child via surrogacy. So whether Elton John bought the eggs of a woman from Ecuador or England, or whether they hired a surrogate in India or the Philippines, or whether they paid 130,000$ or 230,000$ to buy a child is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they did in fact buy a child and that no one, be he heterosexual or otherwise, should be able to buy another human being.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:23:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:22:25 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 3:16:10 PM, YYW wrote:

Here are some basic facts:

You have no idea if this happened, you have no evidence for the claim's you're making and what you're doing here is dangerously close to libelous.

Like all the other threads you've made about this and other topics that exist within the greater penumbra of gay rights, what you say is wholly lacking in evidentiary grounding, your conclusions are spurious and ill founded and your opinion is based on nothing other than your distaste for homosexuality.

This thread is nothing less than an act of self disgrace, such that it more harshly condemns you than those who you are seeking to lambast.

You've missed the entire point, YYW.

I enjoy how your point changes when I rip apart your bullsh!t narrative.
Tsar of DDO
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:25:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hawkins, bladerunner:

As I wrote above, I condemn the buying of children by either homosexual or heterosexual couples:

At any rate, at this point, supporters of same-sex"marriage" and same-sex parenting respond with saying that opposite-sex couples often buy children as well via IVF and so that, because opposite-sex couples can do this, same-sex couples should also be able to do this. But three point ought to be made here: (I) opposite-sex couples need not resort to surrogacy or sperm banking or indeed IVF in order to have a child insofar as the union between a man and a woman is, in principle, ordered towards procreation, whereas same-sex couples have no other option (besides perhaps adopting, which I find likewise problematic for reasons that needn't concern this topic yet) because their union is obviously not ordered towards procreation; (II) when a same-sex couple buys a child, they will inevitably deprive that child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both his biological mother and father) whereas an opposite sex couple can, at the very least, provide a child with both a mother and father; and (III) neither same-sex couples nor opposite-sex couples should be able to buy a child because no one should have a so-called "right to have a child" insofar as this amounts to nothing more than the treating of human beings and children as objects and commodities to be bought if wanted and disposed of if undesired. This last point is crucial. It will often be presented by those sympathetic to same-sex parenting, surrogacy, sperm-banking, "LGBT issues," and so forth as a sort of argument from consistency to the effect that, if opposite-sex couples can buy children like commodities, then same-sex couples should also be able to do so. To which one ought to respond in several ways: (I) it is not at all a strong argument to claim that, because one injustice is happening (i.e. opposite-sex couples buying children like commodities), another injustice ought to be permitted (same-sex couples being allowed to buy children like commodities). (II) Even granting that allowing opposite-sex couples to buy children like commodities commits one to allowing same-sex couples to buy children like commodities as well, an antecedent question must first be asked, namely: should humans be able to be bought and sold like commodities? To which the answer, again, is "absolutely not." This just means that the buying of children like commodities ought to be condemned regardless of who is doing it, be it an opposite-sex couple or a same-sex couple or a celebrity like Elton John.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:26:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I enjoy how your point changes when I rip apart your bullsh!t narrative.

That was always the point!

I love how your responses become weak after I allay your (perhaps deliberate) egregious misunderstandings.

You can replace Elton John with Fred and Bob and the point remains the same.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:27:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:26:55 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I enjoy how your point changes when I rip apart your bullsh!t narrative.

That was always the point!

I love how your responses become weak after I allay your (perhaps deliberate) egregious misunderstandings.

You can replace Elton John with Fred and Bob and the point remains the same.

Indeed, you can replace Elton John with Susan and Bob and the point remains the same.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:29:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, YYW, notice the abundant use of the phrase "likely" in my post. I obviously am not privy to the exact details of how Elton John bought a child. But, as I said, basic biological and economic facts allows one to make very accurate guesses.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:29:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:27:38 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:26:55 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I enjoy how your point changes when I rip apart your bullsh!t narrative.

That was always the point!

I love how your responses become weak after I allay your (perhaps deliberate) egregious misunderstandings.

lol

You can replace Elton John with Fred and Bob and the point remains the same.


Indeed, you can replace Elton John with Susan and Bob and the point remains the same.

And they're still bullsh!t.
Tsar of DDO
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:30:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:29:55 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:27:38 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:26:55 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I enjoy how your point changes when I rip apart your bullsh!t narrative.

That was always the point!

I love how your responses become weak after I allay your (perhaps deliberate) egregious misunderstandings.

lol

You can replace Elton John with Fred and Bob and the point remains the same.


Indeed, you can replace Elton John with Susan and Bob and the point remains the same.

And they're still bullsh!t.

Oh my. Such insight. Much intelligent. Much impressed.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:34:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:27:38 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:26:55 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:23:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I enjoy how your point changes when I rip apart your bullsh!t narrative.

That was always the point!

I love how your responses become weak after I allay your (perhaps deliberate) egregious misunderstandings.

You can replace Elton John with Fred and Bob and the point remains the same.


Indeed, you can replace Elton John with Susan and Bob and the point remains the same.

Ahh, but you chose to use this as an opportunity to hate on gay couples... and now that you've been called on it, you don't want to respond to my ripping you apart, you want to change your narrative while claiming that I misunderstood the first.

This is why I can't take you seriously.
Tsar of DDO
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
Ahh, but you chose to use this as an opportunity to hate on gay couples... and now that you've been called on it, you don't want to respond to my ripping you apart, you want to change your narrative while claiming that I misunderstood the first.

This is why I can't take you seriously.

You clearly did misunderstand. That charge has not been done away with. The reasons why I used the example of a same-sex couple in the scenario are, as I mentioned above, numerous: (I) opposite-sex couples need not resort to surrogacy or sperm banking or indeed IVF in order to have a child insofar as the union between a man and a woman is, in principle, ordered towards procreation, whereas same-sex couples have no other option (besides perhaps adopting, which I find likewise problematic for reasons that needn't concern this topic yet) because their union is obviously not ordered towards procreation; (II) when a same-sex couple buys a child, they will inevitably deprive that child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both his biological mother and father) whereas an opposite sex couple can, at the very least, provide a child with both a mother and father; and (III) the implementation of same-sex "marriage" will inevitably change parenting law (as has been the case in every territory where ssm has been implemented) in such a way that a "right to have a child" will be created, whereupon surrogacy and the buying and trafficking of children by same-sex couples will become unstoppable.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 4:50:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 3:46:23 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Yes, people have children for silly reasons, and occasionally this is done at the expense at others. The question, though, is whether this is a charge that is specific for homosexuals. What part of this is not true of heterosexual couples?

Assuming that all parties consent, where is the largest issue?

Consenting to something is not a sufficient condition for an action being moral. For example, suppose that I, a sadomasochist, "consent" to being violently tortured, killed and eaten by someone who has a taste for human flesh (or who simply is curious). Would the fact both parties "consented" to this depravity make it morally permissible? Of course not!

It is, for you, that parents are required to be biologically both male and female. So, a question that I think comes up needs to be addressed. Suppose a man is effeminate. He marries a woman. She gets pregnant, and she has a child. Is that child going to have a bad upbringing, by your standards? Or if the woman has masculine personal traits?

Then the child would probably not have a very good mother/father, for these would simply be poor "specimens," if you will, of either sex insofar as they fail to instantiate their nature as men or women. If you're a nominalist, though, I suspect you'll dislike this answer.


Suppose now that there is a masculine man, and an effeminate man, in a homosexual relationship who have a child. Are they going to have a bad upbringing?

Either both children are fine, or both are bad, if I understand the arguments correctly. Because the general argument seems to be you need a culturally male, and culturally female, parent in a relationship. If true, though, then you can have two men who are culturally male and culturally female. Similarly, you can have a culturally male woman in a relationship with a culturally male man. This question always seems iffy when someone answers it.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:00:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:38:30 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
Ahh, but you chose to use this as an opportunity to hate on gay couples... and now that you've been called on it, you don't want to respond to my ripping you apart, you want to change your narrative while claiming that I misunderstood the first.

This is why I can't take you seriously.

You clearly did misunderstand. That charge has not been done away with. The reasons why I used the example of a same-sex couple in the scenario are, as I mentioned above, numerous: (I) opposite-sex couples need not resort to surrogacy or sperm banking or indeed IVF in order to have a child insofar as the union between a man and a woman is, in principle, ordered towards procreation, whereas same-sex couples have no other option (besides perhaps adopting, which I find likewise problematic for reasons that needn't concern this topic yet) because their union is obviously not ordered towards procreation;

So, realize that not all gay couples have or want kids and even if they do, stating your aversion to certain medical practices can be achieved without bashing gay couples. Your point may have been to advance a bioethical argument, but that's not what you did -and claiming that I misunderstood something isn't going to change the fact that you posted what you did. Rather, it's an ostentatious exercise in intellectual dishonesty as much as it is a peevish demonstration of feigned pedantry as a measure to circumvent accountability for your acting like an @ssdouche.

(II) when a same-sex couple buys a child, they will inevitably deprive that child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both his biological mother and father) whereas an opposite sex couple can, at the very least, provide a child with both a mother and father; and

You have this idea that if only a kid has a mommy and a daddy that everything will turn out fine, but that's not the case -and you've been told why that's not the case ad nauseum by this entire forum, and, more specifically, myself, on a number of occasions. But, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against your perspective is, no matter how baseless your claims have proven to be, you're not going to give it up because this is an ideological matter to you and not a question of what the right thing to do/think/believe is. And whenever anyone makes an argument against what you've said, your method of rejoinder is pretty consistent; either (a) ignore what was said, (b) willfully misinterpret responses, (c) pretend that someone rebutting you misunderstood what you said, (d) change your argument altogether. That, dear boy, is why I can't take you seriously -in sum.

(III) the implementation of same-sex "marriage" will inevitably change parenting law (as has been the case in every territory where ssm has been implemented) in such a way that a "right to have a child" will be created, whereupon surrogacy and the buying and trafficking of children by same-sex couples will become unstoppable.

Your argument against the undesired consequent holds no water, especially where the predicate doesn't imply the outcome you're averse to. But yeah... I'm sure all of these words that I'm using either go over your head, or you'll just try to figure out a way to sidestep all this inconvenience of having everything you've said turned.
Tsar of DDO
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:15:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also find this whole "bought commodity" argument to be utter bunk, btw. As a general rule (I'm not positive about the UK), you can't turn a profit from surrogacy. you may be taken care of during said surrogacy, but you don't walk away with a fat check. Fundamentally, you can extend the argument to any birth which involves the exchange of money, which means that unless you're doing a homebirth without a midwife, you're "buying" some "chattel".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:28:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 4:50:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 3:46:23 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Yes, people have children for silly reasons, and occasionally this is done at the expense at others. The question, though, is whether this is a charge that is specific for homosexuals. What part of this is not true of heterosexual couples?

Assuming that all parties consent, where is the largest issue?

Consenting to something is not a sufficient condition for an action being moral. For example, suppose that I, a sadomasochist, "consent" to being violently tortured, killed and eaten by someone who has a taste for human flesh (or who simply is curious). Would the fact both parties "consented" to this depravity make it morally permissible? Of course not!

Sorry, but I disagree.

It is, for you, that parents are required to be biologically both male and female. So, a question that I think comes up needs to be addressed. Suppose a man is effeminate. He marries a woman. She gets pregnant, and she has a child. Is that child going to have a bad upbringing, by your standards? Or if the woman has masculine personal traits?

Then the child would probably not have a very good mother/father, for these would simply be poor "specimens," if you will, of either sex insofar as they fail to instantiate their nature as men or women. If you're a nominalist, though, I suspect you'll dislike this answer.

Now an interesting question arises in my mind. If we are using the following argument:

P1 - A 'bad' marriage [a more appropriate term than bad is probably available, but bear with me] is one where there is an imbalance in the effeminate and masculine traits of the parents.
P2 - Gay marriages are a type of 'bad' marriage.
P3 - All 'bad' marriages ought not be legal.
C1 - Therefore, gay marriage ought not be legal.

If we assent to the premises and validity of this argument, then the following argument, to me, seems an obvious corollary.

P1 - A 'bad' marriage [a more appropriate term than bad is probably available, but bear with me] is one where there is an imbalance in the effeminate and masculine traits of the parents.
P3 - All 'bad' marriages ought not be legal.
C1* - Therefore, we ought not make legal marriages where there is an imbalance of effeminate and masculine traits.

This would imply there needs to be some form of 'test' of masculinity and effemininity to people before their marriage. Moreover, as P2 is a synthetic claim, there can be exceptions made - that is, when there is a masculine woman and an effeminate woman getting married, for example - where a gay marriage can be a good marriage. This all ignoring any questions with P3 in the syllogisms proposed.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2014 5:31:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to clarify, I was referring to a rigid definition of consent when I said that consent justified the act. That is, being utterly informed is a necessary condition of consent. And this generally makes consent impossible (as this implies one both has all knowledge of the situation, including the knowledge that one has all knowledge of the situation, which in itself is an awkward concept to understand).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 9:10:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do agree that surrogacy is an entirely silly procedure when you look at the big picture, and that adoption is a much better option. I look at it in the same light as people who have pay exorbitant amounts of money to have their pets cloned when they can just adopt one. (For anyone who feels the need to say: 'hur dur, he's comparing children to animals,' please understand that you will only be revealing your own complete lack of understanding of basic argumentative principles.)
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:21:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:00:58 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:38:30 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:34:53 PM, YYW wrote:
Ahh, but you chose to use this as an opportunity to hate on gay couples... and now that you've been called on it, you don't want to respond to my ripping you apart, you want to change your narrative while claiming that I misunderstood the first.

This is why I can't take you seriously.

You clearly did misunderstand. That charge has not been done away with. The reasons why I used the example of a same-sex couple in the scenario are, as I mentioned above, numerous: (I) opposite-sex couples need not resort to surrogacy or sperm banking or indeed IVF in order to have a child insofar as the union between a man and a woman is, in principle, ordered towards procreation, whereas same-sex couples have no other option (besides perhaps adopting, which I find likewise problematic for reasons that needn't concern this topic yet) because their union is obviously not ordered towards procreation;

So, realize that not all gay couples have or want kids and even if they do, stating your aversion to certain medical practices can be achieved without bashing gay couples. Your point may have been to advance a bioethical argument, but that's not what you did -and claiming that I misunderstood something isn't going to change the fact that you posted what you did. Rather, it's an ostentatious exercise in intellectual dishonesty as much as it is a peevish demonstration of feigned pedantry as a measure to circumvent accountability for your acting like an @ssdouche.

Sure, not all gay couples will want to have children, but, if the trends speak for anything, it is being revealed that the implementation of same-sex "marriage" not only neuters gendered speak in parental law (i.e. it fundamentally changes parental law), but it is also creating a so-called "right to have a child" insofar as same-sex couples will now feel ordinarily entitled to have a child and, because surrogacy and sperm-banking are one of the only ways to place a child in an inherently infertile union, you can expect (as is already the case) surrogacy and sperm-banking to become unstoppable. Yet surrogacy and sperm-banking, as I have argued, are deeply fraught not only with legal and medical (i.e. health) issues, but also associated with deep ethical issues insofar as it is the treating of a human being as a commodity to be bought if desired and done away with if undesired, which also robs a child of his heritage and, in the case of same-sex parenting, of a relationship with a mother or a father.

(II) when a same-sex couple buys a child, they will inevitably deprive that child of a relationship with a mother or father (if not both his biological mother and father) whereas an opposite sex couple can, at the very least, provide a child with both a mother and father; and

You have this idea that if only a kid has a mommy and a daddy that everything will turn out fine, but that's not the case -and you've been told why that's not the case ad nauseum by this entire forum, and, more specifically, myself, on a number of occasions.

Of course not, I've never said that. A child having a mother and father is obviously not a sufficient condition for the child to have a "perfect" life (whatever that means). Generally speaking, a the best environment for a child is for him to be raised by his own mother and father, wherein he may have a relationship with the individuals whose union brought him into being, so that he may know his heritage and origins, so that his parents may attend to their obligations to their child, and so that the child may have a relationship with both a man and a woman, the two poles which constitute the human person so that he may be socially adapted to conduct himself adequately in a society which is compromised of both sexes. However, it would, in fact, be a gross injustice (and indeed a non-sequitur) to claim that children can be freely detached from their mother and father and, further, deprived of a relationship with a mother or a father simply because an immature and asinine adult couple "really feels like it."

But, no matter how overwhelming the evidence against your perspective is, no matter how baseless your claims have proven to be, you're not going to give it up because this is an ideological matter to you and not a question of what the right thing to do/think/believe is. And whenever anyone makes an argument against what you've said, your method of rejoinder is pretty consistent; either (a) ignore what was said, (b) willfully misinterpret responses, (c) pretend that someone rebutting you misunderstood what you said, (d) change your argument altogether. That, dear boy, is why I can't take you seriously -in sum.

(III) the implementation of same-sex "marriage" will inevitably change parenting law (as has been the case in every territory where ssm has been implemented) in such a way that a "right to have a child" will be created, whereupon surrogacy and the buying and trafficking of children by same-sex couples will become unstoppable.

Your argument against the undesired consequent holds no water, especially where the predicate doesn't imply the outcome you're averse to. But yeah... I'm sure all of these words that I'm using either go over your head, or you'll just try to figure out a way to sidestep all this inconvenience of having everything you've said turned.

Translate that to English, dear chap. You did know that throwing around big words just for the sake of obfuscation in place of a substantive response when you cannot think of one is pretty pathetic, right?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:22:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 9:10:02 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I do agree that surrogacy is an entirely silly procedure when you look at the big picture, and that adoption is a much better option. I look at it in the same light as people who have pay exorbitant amounts of money to have their pets cloned when they can just adopt one. (For anyone who feels the need to say: 'hur dur, he's comparing children to animals,' please understand that you will only be revealing your own complete lack of understanding of basic argumentative principles.)

I'd go so far as to say that it, along with sperm-banking, is an outright immoral procedure.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:29:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:15:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I also find this whole "bought commodity" argument to be utter bunk, btw. As a general rule (I'm not positive about the UK), you can't turn a profit from surrogacy. you may be taken care of during said surrogacy, but you don't walk away with a fat check.

I'm actually not sure about the US (though I do believe that surrogacy is legal in a handful of states), but do you seriously think that surrogates are not compensated? Do you think they're getting pregnant and carrying a child to term simply out of the kindness of their hearts? I seriously doubt it.

Fundamentally, you can extend the argument to any birth which involves the exchange of money, which means that unless you're doing a homebirth without a midwife, you're "buying" some "chattel".

But in a regular birth (e.g. Fred takes his wife, Anne, to a hospital to deliver her/their child and pays the fees associated with childbirth not included in insurance, etc.), the money in play is being provided to pay for services to help the couple deliver their own child in good health. Their child is not the product of a coerced financial arrangement, but rather the loving union of his mother and father. In the case of surrogacy and sperm-banking, however, the entire order of events is coerced by capital (i.e. lettuce/green papers/Benjamins/cashmoney). And, on top of that, in the case of surrogacy, not only is the child's mother's identity deliberately obfuscated (by the implanting of another woman's eggs in the womb of the surrogate), but the child is being created with the deliberate intention to be detached from his mother.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:35:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 5:28:40 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 4/5/2014 4:50:47 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 3:46:23 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Yes, people have children for silly reasons, and occasionally this is done at the expense at others. The question, though, is whether this is a charge that is specific for homosexuals. What part of this is not true of heterosexual couples?

Assuming that all parties consent, where is the largest issue?

Consenting to something is not a sufficient condition for an action being moral. For example, suppose that I, a sadomasochist, "consent" to being violently tortured, killed and eaten by someone who has a taste for human flesh (or who simply is curious). Would the fact both parties "consented" to this depravity make it morally permissible? Of course not!

Sorry, but I disagree.

Care to elaborate? Do you really think that, say, if I and 19 other people "consented" to murdering torturing one another in my house that it would be perfectly moral for us to do so just because we "consented" to such depravity?

It is, for you, that parents are required to be biologically both male and female. So, a question that I think comes up needs to be addressed. Suppose a man is effeminate. He marries a woman. She gets pregnant, and she has a child. Is that child going to have a bad upbringing, by your standards? Or if the woman has masculine personal traits?

Then the child would probably not have a very good mother/father, for these would simply be poor "specimens," if you will, of either sex insofar as they fail to instantiate their nature as men or women. If you're a nominalist, though, I suspect you'll dislike this answer.

Now an interesting question arises in my mind. If we are using the following argument:

P1 - A 'bad' marriage [a more appropriate term than bad is probably available, but bear with me] is one where there is an imbalance in the effeminate and masculine traits of the parents.
P2 - Gay marriages are a type of 'bad' marriage.
P3 - All 'bad' marriages ought not be legal.
C1 - Therefore, gay marriage ought not be legal.

If we assent to the premises and validity of this argument, then the following argument, to me, seems an obvious corollary.

P1 - A 'bad' marriage [a more appropriate term than bad is probably available, but bear with me] is one where there is an imbalance in the effeminate and masculine traits of the parents.
P3 - All 'bad' marriages ought not be legal.
C1* - Therefore, we ought not make legal marriages where there is an imbalance of effeminate and masculine traits.

This would imply there needs to be some form of 'test' of masculinity and effemininity to people before their marriage. Moreover, as P2 is a synthetic claim, there can be exceptions made - that is, when there is a masculine woman and an effeminate woman getting married, for example - where a gay marriage can be a good marriage. This all ignoring any questions with P3 in the syllogisms proposed.

Except, of course, that there is a painfully obvious difference between a man who is nevertheless a bad example or instantiation of a man (or, to put it differently, a man who particularly and often fails to fulfill his nature as man) and a woman. Likewise, there is a painfully obvious difference between a woman who is nevertheless a bad example or instantiation of a woman and a man. For in either case, to not instantiate one's nature is not to fail to have that nature in the first place. For example, a poorly drawn triangle is still nevertheless triangle whereas a nearly perfectly drawn circle is not a triangle at all, but rather a circle which happens to very closely instantiate its nature qua circle.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:40:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Firstly, as long as one continues to consent to an act, I do not see what right one has to stop them from doing so - using my rigid definition of consent.

Secondly, I do not see the difference so clearly. Taking your geometric example, consider a triangle so badly drawn it is a perfect circle, and a perfect circle. Regardless of the fact you believe that it is a "bad triangle", it is still a perfectly good circle. Similarly, regardless of the fact you see it as a woman who is masculine, she is still masculine, and still has the skills to raise a child with someone culturally effeminate.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:52:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay....

Let's assume that at some point in the future, one can buy a newborn child, at will. Just like that.

Please tell me what is wrong with that. Because as far as I see, there's nothing intrinsically wrong about about this raw action, disregarding the sourcing of the child etc.

Once a child reaches a certain (young) age, they become associated with their parents, and have developed a psychological parental bond, at which point one would have a strong case that such a child should not be 'traded' etc.

We see less clear-cut cases with this every day with existing families, where parents can no longer upkeep their children, and so the children go into care. Clearly our society allows for this separation in certain circumstances, and this seems an even less extreme example of these cases.

Before that point though, I'm not so sure. Clearly in the case with Elton John and his husband this is unlikely to negatively impact the child's life, hell I would be thrilled to have Elton John as my father!

This post seems to be based on ideology rather than actual impact on society. To be fair I expect in the next few hundred years the idea of a monogamous marriage to hold less weight, as it's increasingly clear we are naturally better suited as a polygamous species.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 3:55:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:29:52 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 4/5/2014 5:15:22 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
I also find this whole "bought commodity" argument to be utter bunk, btw. As a general rule (I'm not positive about the UK), you can't turn a profit from surrogacy. you may be taken care of during said surrogacy, but you don't walk away with a fat check.

I'm actually not sure about the US (though I do believe that surrogacy is legal in a handful of states), but do you seriously think that surrogates are not compensated? Do you think they're getting pregnant and carrying a child to term simply out of the kindness of their hearts? I seriously doubt it.

Then let's discuss the reality--as soon as you can provide some evidence that hey are NOT doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, we can talk about that evidence. In the meantime, this sort of baseless speculation gets us nowhere.

I imagine that it's rather similar to "The New Normal", a show I rather liked that I feel was tragically canceled.

Fundamentally, you can extend the argument to any birth which involves the exchange of money, which means that unless you're doing a homebirth without a midwife, you're "buying" some "chattel".

But in a regular birth (e.g. Fred takes his wife, Anne, to a hospital to deliver her/their child and pays the fees associated with childbirth not included in insurance, etc.), the money in play is being provided to pay for services to help the couple deliver their own child in good health.

Which is exactly what those using a surrogate would argue.

Their child is not the product of a coerced financial arrangement,

Where, exactly, do you get this "coercion"?

but rather the loving union of his mother and father.

There is no necessity that the mother and father love each other.

In the case of surrogacy and sperm-banking, however, the entire order of events is coerced by capital (i.e. lettuce/green papers/Benjamins/cashmoney).

If you think the involvement of cash makes it inherently coercive, then that argument applies to the folks delivering a "normal" baby as well.

And, on top of that, in the case of surrogacy, not only is the child's mother's identity deliberately obfuscated (by the implanting of another woman's eggs in the womb of the surrogate), but the child is being created with the deliberate intention to be detached from his mother.

Biological mother, yes.

I see no relevance to anything with that, unless you're against adoption.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/6/2014 4:18:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/5/2014 3:12:13 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/5/2014 2:43:00 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Allow me to tell you a story about a musician with a great talent for music and performance but perhaps not for much else.

Oh, gee. This should be good.

I'm talking about Elton John. As you may know, Elton John is in a "civil partnership" with his "husband" or "partner," whatever-his-name-is.

No, they're married now. Keep up with the times.

Sometime after they embarked on their "civil partnership,"* Elton John and his partner decided that they wanted a child.

*Marriage.

Their union obviously was not going to result in a pregnancy. So they did some shopping around. Shopping around for what? Well, for some woman's eggs. Not just any woman's eggs, mind you, but likely those of a woman who might have attended an Ivy League and who otherwise had desirable genetic traits.

Oh, sh!t. Heterosexual people do this too, don't ya know?

So they likely put on ad on the newspaper (or whatever it is British people do to advertise that they want to buy someones' eggs) and found a willing candidate in some financially-needy college student seeking whatever would help to pay off her tuition at Oxford or King's College (or perhaps on the other side of the pond at Princeton, Georgetown, Yale, etc.).

I'd like to see that ad. I think you're full of sh!t, but even if that's true, I don't take issue with it.

Having agreed to sell her eggs, the woman was probably taken to a reproductive technology facility where her egg(s) her surgically extracted. She was, of course, probably told that she'd be "helping out" Elton John achieve his dream and whatnot.

Actually, that may or may not be true. The identities of those seeking egg donors do not necessarily have to be disclosed in either the United States, or the United Kingdom.

But she was probably not informed of the various medical risks associated with egg donation

And this is where you reveal the extent to which you have no idea what you're talking about. Let me introduce you to the concept of "informed consent."

Here's a government website that outlines what it is:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov...

She would have had to sign something like one of these:

http://www.thedoctors.com...

And since I'm pretty sure you're too lazy to actually click and read those links, let me break it down for you:

Mosby's Medical Dictionary defines "informed consent" as:

"permission obtained from a patient to perform a specific test or procedure. Informed consent is required before most invasive procedures are performed and before a patient is admitted to a research study. The document used must be written in a language understood by the patient and be dated and signed by the patient and at least one witness. Signed consent should be obtained by the person performing the procedure. Included in the document are clear, rational statements that describe the procedure or test. Also required is a statement that care will not be withheld if the patient does not consent. Informed consent is voluntary. By law, informed consent must be obtained more than a given number of days or hours before certain procedures, including therapeutic abortion and sterilization, and must always be obtained when the patient is fully competent."

Informed consent is contrasted from implied consent, which is:

"the granting of permission for health care without a formal agreement between the patient and health care provider. An example is an appointment made with a physician by a patient with a physical complaint; it is implied that by making the appointment the patient gives consent to the physician to make a diagnosis and offer treatment."

Implied consent is not sufficient, however, for the kind of procedure described in your OP -meaning that whoever this Ivy League brainchild was would have to be informed of all risks associated with the procedure in question, would specifically be instructed of her legal rights and contractual responsibilities in this process and would be briefed in all aspects of the procedure and transaction. This is the case in both the United States and the United Kingdom.

(not to mention any of the ethical issues associated with egg donation) as the reproductive technology industry, like the abortion industry, is a business, after all, and profit will always outweigh any possible risks unless they result in less profit.

You make all these idiotic assumptions, and you have no idea what you're talking about 9/10ths of the time you post things.

After buying her eggs, they did some more shopping around.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

This time, however, they searched for a paid womb (viz. a surrogate). They likely found an eager candidate in a poor Latin American or Indian woman (or perhaps, again, even a woman in college who was struggling to pay for her tuition).

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

So with a promise of lucrative compensation, they dragged the surrogate off to another reproductive technology center and impregnated her with the eggs of the woman they had earlier bought. In the name of profit, they likely also forwent to inform the surrogate of the ethical, medical and legal problems associated with surrogacy.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

So Elton John and his partner flew back to London to wait for 9 months, probably calling the surrogate every so often to check up on their investment.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

And, after 9 months, they flew to meet with the surrogate whereupon they handed over a wad of cash in exchange for a child that they paid for and they took him back to London (or wherever) so that he may be intentionally deprived of a relationship with a mother simply because two adults "really wanted" a child so that they could pretend to be the happy heterosexual couple and parade their bought child around on a stroller, showing all the elite Londoners and Hollywood-ers that they were finally a complete and happy family now that they had successfully bought a child.

Oh, you have proof? No, of course you don't, because it is inconceivable that you'd have the kind of access required to obtain that information.

OH SNAP.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2014 4:31:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/6/2014 3:40:43 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Firstly, as long as one continues to consent to an act, I do not see what right one has to stop them from doing so - using my rigid definition of consent.

It's unclear what you mean---whether such actions I mentioned ought to be legal or whether they are moral (or morally permissible) or both.

Secondly, I do not see the difference so clearly. Taking your geometric example, consider a triangle so badly drawn it is a perfect circle, and a perfect circle.

In no sense would that be a "poorly drawn triangle" but rather a circle.

Regardless of the fact you believe that it is a "bad triangle", it is still a perfectly good circle.

It's no such thing, i.e. a "bad triangle," because it is a circle.

Similarly, regardless of the fact you see it as a woman who is masculine, she is still masculine, and still has the skills to raise a child with someone culturally effeminate.

No offense and all, but this seems utterly desperate to me. An effeminate man is still a man, after all, right? A masculine woman is still a woman after all, right? These are rhetorical questions, of course. No amount of "acting manly" will make a woman a man nor will any amount of "acting girly" make a man a woman. They may resemble the opposite sex, but they clearly are not of the opposite sex.