Total Posts:166|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Global ban on commercial surrogacy.

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 7:07:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

I've seen enough cases of absolutely shitty biological parents to allow this different form of giving up for adoption.
Is this any different from a welfare mom getting paid by the government to have babies? Of course it is, because the welfare mom is extremely likely to neglect them if she doesn't ask CPS to take them away.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 12:39:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 7:07:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

I've seen enough cases of absolutely shitty biological parents to allow this different form of giving up for adoption.

I don't understand your argument because surrogacy isn't an alternative to staying with biological parents. It's a system to sidestep the biological parents. Unless you think that the surrogate would have and keep her own children if surrogacy was illegal, but I don't think there's any reason to think that.

Adoption is different because the baby already exists. Surrogacy would be more like potential adoptive parents signing a contract with women before they get pregnant and paying them to produce babies for adoption. That would also be a bad thing.

Is this any different from a welfare mom getting paid by the government to have babies? Of course it is, because the welfare mom is extremely likely to neglect them if she doesn't ask CPS to take them away.

Are you trying to argue that poverty is worse for children than commercial surrogacy? It's not really the point because there are a lot of things that are bad for children - poverty, poison, war, etc. None of these are alternatives to surrogacy, so I'm not really sure how pointing out that they exist is an argument for commercial surrogacy.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 12:46:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 12:39:20 PM, Garbanza wrote:

Is this any different from a welfare mom getting paid by the government to have babies? Of course it is, because the welfare mom is extremely likely to neglect them if she doesn't ask CPS to take them away.

Are you trying to argue that poverty is worse for children than commercial surrogacy? It's not really the point because there are a lot of things that are bad for children - poverty, poison, war, etc. None of these are alternatives to surrogacy, so I'm not really sure how pointing out that they exist is an argument for commercial surrogacy.

No. I am pointing out pregnancies for money have existed ever since the government paid mothers to have children.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:17:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 12:46:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
No. I am pointing out pregnancies for money have existed ever since the government paid mothers to have children.

Ohh I get it. The government pays and then takes the babies via the CPS. It was a joke. So dark.
Gmork
Posts: 82
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:41:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

If children have a right to be raised by biological parents, then should adoption on-demand also be banned? You know, when the mother and the father look at each other and say, "we can't take care of a baby, let's put him up for adoption instead of aborting it". Actually, if the child has a right, then abortion sounds like it should be banned, too. Abortion aside, if on-demand adoption should still be available, what difference do you make between a parent's choice to give up a child for personal reasons and a parent's choice to give up a child for profit?

I agree it is unsettling to have a "baby factory", but I see no reason aside an appeal to emotion that justifies closing this option for parents. After all, isn't an orphanage just a broker for the surrogates, with the adoptive parents paying fees, and the parents getting nothing?
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 1:59:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The problem isn't so much about biological parentage, the problem with surrogacy is that it is completely and utterly pointless. It is bringing a new child into this world when there are many children languishing in orphanages waiting for a parent. So apart from being pointless, it is also irresponsible because it is an option that doesn't help the orphan population when they're in a position to do so.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 3:50:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:17:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/10/2015 12:46:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
No. I am pointing out pregnancies for money have existed ever since the government paid mothers to have children.

Ohh I get it. The government pays and then takes the babies via the CPS. It was a joke. So dark.

The real joke is that the government doesn't take most of the babies, but hands out payments freely.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 3:55:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:41:56 PM, Gmork wrote:

After all, isn't an orphanage just a broker for the surrogates, with the adoptive parents paying fees, and the parents getting nothing?

That's okay though. You are not giving mothers a monetary incentive to get pregnant and sell babies the same way as if one would sell plasma.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 4:59:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 1:41:56 PM, Gmork wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

If children have a right to be raised by biological parents, then should adoption on-demand also be banned? You know, when the mother and the father look at each other and say, "we can't take care of a baby, let's put him up for adoption instead of aborting it". Actually, if the child has a right, then abortion sounds like it should be banned, too. Abortion aside, if on-demand adoption should still be available, what difference do you make between a parent's choice to give up a child for personal reasons and a parent's choice to give up a child for profit?

This is not really about parents. If parents and the family refuse to take care of a child, then the state takes care of it, usually by arranging adoption or foster care. The state should never pay families to give up their children. Surrogacy is different because it's arranged deliberately to keep the child away from its biological mother, even before it's conceived. If people want to be parents, or one person wants to be a parent, that's his first decision, to separate the child from it's biological mother, and that decision is made for his own convenience.

I agree it is unsettling to have a "baby factory", but I see no reason aside an appeal to emotion that justifies closing this option for parents. After all, isn't an orphanage just a broker for the surrogates, with the adoptive parents paying fees, and the parents getting nothing?

If commercial surrogacy is legal, then it's a state-sanctioned transaction. There are transactions that are illegal - such as selling yourself into slavery or selling organs. They are illegal because we, as a society, refuse to allow people to sell their rights or their body parts for money, because we believe that integrity of a citizen's rights and body to be inviolable. On the other hand, we can't prevent people hacking off their body parts and giving them to other people or working hard labor for someone else for free and calling them master, if they want to. Similarly, if a woman wants to carry another person's baby (say, for her sister or a friend), out of the goodness of her heart, and then hand it over for adoption, we can't stop that. But it shouldn't be a legal commercial activity, just as slavery isn't legal.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 5:05:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 3:50:19 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/10/2015 1:17:49 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/10/2015 12:46:35 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
No. I am pointing out pregnancies for money have existed ever since the government paid mothers to have children.

Ohh I get it. The government pays and then takes the babies via the CPS. It was a joke. So dark.

The real joke is that the government doesn't take most of the babies, but hands out payments freely.

It has to be freely, though. It would be pointless to make mothers pay for the payments, because they'd cancel each other out.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 7:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 8:50:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could be labeled as anti-gay with this stance.

I don't think so.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2015 8:50:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/11/2015 8:50:17 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
You could be labeled as anti-gay with this stance.

I don't think it's anti-gay, unless you have the assumption that male gay couples - along with all kinds of couples - have a right to a child, and society owes them the means of obtaining one, but i don't think anybody is arguing that. I've never heard such an argument, anyway.

Parenthood and sexuality are different. Mitsutoki Shigeta's sexuality has never come into it, for example. He's a 24-year-old single man who turns out to be also some kind of nutcase and he could father 16 babies without mothers because he was rich and the law allowed it.

Paedophiles could take advantage of this law. For example, there was the case in Australia of a convicted paedophile who obtained a baby from a surrogate in Thailand. It only made headlines because the baby's twin brother - who had Down's syndrom - was left behind. If there hadn't been a twin brother, or if the paedophile had taken the brother too, it might never have made the news.
http://www.abc.net.au...

None of this has anything to do with being gay. I think to frame as an anti-gay issue is a bit creepy and anti-gay, actually, because it implies that these abuses are somehow linked to homosexuality, when they're not.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 1:56:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

In case you missed this rather major detail, the man being questioned IS the biological parent of the children in your article.

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

---

From the article:

"We are looking into two motives. One is human trafficking and the other is exploitation of children," said police Lit Gen Kokiat Wongvorachart, Thailand's lead investigator in the case.

This is silly, ridiculous, sexist, and stupefying. Women are able to use sperm from sperm banks without contacting the father, yet when men do this with eggs from an egg bank (which of course would necessitate a surrogate to deliver since he cannot deliver his own baby himself), all of a sudden cries for a ban on such activity surface?

The man didn't take advantage of anyone...it's assumed the man paid the surrogates for their services, and that he doesn't plan to use HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN as sex slaves or whatever else this ridiculous article is insinuating. Moreover, the man has stated that he has the means to give HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN the means to a successful future life.

From the article:

"These are legal babies, they all have birth certificates," Ratpratan told Thailand's Channel 3 television station. "There are assets purchased under these babies' names. There are savings accounts for these babies, and investments. If he were to sell these babies, why would he give them these benefits?"
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:17:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 12:39:20 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/10/2015 7:07:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

I've seen enough cases of absolutely shitty biological parents to allow this different form of giving up for adoption.

I don't understand your argument because surrogacy isn't an alternative to staying with biological parents. It's a system to sidestep the biological parents.

Reread your own article and inform us how the BIOLOGICAL FATHER is engaging in "a system to sidestep the biological parents".
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 2:34:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

Your argument is that you don't like something, therefore it should be banned.

Always high quality content there, Garbanza.
Tsar of DDO
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:31:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 2:34:35 PM, YYW wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

Your argument is that you don't like something, therefore it should be banned.

Always high quality content there, Garbanza.

Thanks. Making comments about what policies you like IS higher quality content than popping up to make empty, bitchy remarks, so you SHOULD be impressed by me.

Nevertheless, I'm sensing that this is your best attempt at sarcasm, so I invite you to present an actual argument in response to the OP. Show us all how it's done, YYW. :P
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 2:17:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2015 12:39:20 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/10/2015 7:07:15 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

I've seen enough cases of absolutely shitty biological parents to allow this different form of giving up for adoption.

I don't understand your argument because surrogacy isn't an alternative to staying with biological parents. It's a system to sidestep the biological parents.

Reread your own article and inform us how the BIOLOGICAL FATHER is engaging in "a system to sidestep the biological parents".

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2015 10:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 1:56:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

In case you missed this rather major detail, the man being questioned IS the biological parent of the children in your article.

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

---

From the article:

"We are looking into two motives. One is human trafficking and the other is exploitation of children," said police Lit Gen Kokiat Wongvorachart, Thailand's lead investigator in the case.

This is silly, ridiculous, sexist, and stupefying. Women are able to use sperm from sperm banks without contacting the father, yet when men do this with eggs from an egg bank (which of course would necessitate a surrogate to deliver since he cannot deliver his own baby himself), all of a sudden cries for a ban on such activity surface?

Yes, and I think you've carried PC thinking way too far if you think that the contribution of the biological father and mother for the year following conception are equivalent. They're not.

The man didn't take advantage of anyone...it's assumed the man paid the surrogates for their services, and that he doesn't plan to use HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN as sex slaves or whatever else this ridiculous article is insinuating. Moreover, the man has stated that he has the means to give HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN the means to a successful future life.

I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong. Of course sometimes it's impossible for infants to stay with their mothers, and then other arrangements can be made, but to design situations that deliberately separate infant and mother is not in the best interests of the child, and it doesn't make any difference how many investment accounts are opened in a two-year-old's name. It still needs its mother.

From the article:

"These are legal babies, they all have birth certificates," Ratpratan told Thailand's Channel 3 television station. "There are assets purchased under these babies' names. There are savings accounts for these babies, and investments. If he were to sell these babies, why would he give them these benefits?"

I never suggested that he created them for sex slavery. I only suggested that he deliberately arranged to obtain 16 motherless babies and he wanted more.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:55:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:43:45 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/12/2015 1:56:54 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/10/2015 5:02:04 AM, Garbanza wrote:
Children have a right to be raised by their biological parents whenever possible. People shouldn't be able to pay a fee and obtain children who are designed to be detatched from their mothers. For example, Mitsutoki Shigeta paid to obtain 16 babies without mothers. This is just evil. http://www.theguardian.com...

In case you missed this rather major detail, the man being questioned IS the biological parent of the children in your article.

I almost put up a debate, but arguing with one person is not enough. There should be a global ban on commercial surrogacy.

---

From the article:

"We are looking into two motives. One is human trafficking and the other is exploitation of children," said police Lit Gen Kokiat Wongvorachart, Thailand's lead investigator in the case.

This is silly, ridiculous, sexist, and stupefying. Women are able to use sperm from sperm banks without contacting the father, yet when men do this with eggs from an egg bank (which of course would necessitate a surrogate to deliver since he cannot deliver his own baby himself), all of a sudden cries for a ban on such activity surface?

Yes, and I think you've carried PC thinking way too far if you think that the contribution of the biological father and mother for the year following conception are equivalent. They're not.

And is this one year's difference worth a ban that would change lives throughout their lifetimes?

No one is saying that the treatment will be the same. What I'm questioning is why you're concluding that this difference in treatment warrants something as ridiculous as a ban on this activity.

It's like outlawing wheat because 1% of the population is allergic to gluten.

The man didn't take advantage of anyone...it's assumed the man paid the surrogates for their services, and that he doesn't plan to use HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN as sex slaves or whatever else this ridiculous article is insinuating. Moreover, the man has stated that he has the means to give HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN the means to a successful future life.

I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong. Of course sometimes it's impossible for infants to stay with their mothers, and then other arrangements can be made, but to design situations that deliberately separate infant and mother is not in the best interests of the child, and it doesn't make any difference how many investment accounts are opened in a two-year-old's name. It still needs its mother.

Hypothetical: What if a gay couple wanted to make two biological children, one of each male? Of course they'd need surrogates to do this. Why should they be prevented from doing so?

From the article:

"These are legal babies, they all have birth certificates," Ratpratan told Thailand's Channel 3 television station. "There are assets purchased under these babies' names. There are savings accounts for these babies, and investments. If he were to sell these babies, why would he give them these benefits?"

I never suggested that he created them for sex slavery. I only suggested that he deliberately arranged to obtain 16 motherless babies and he wanted more.

You didn't...but your article did. Your article is warped beyond reason.

And what is wrong with him conceiving 16 babies, babies that would be taken care of and for whom nannies were already arranged before they were confiscated by the government?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 12:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM, Garbanza wrote:

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.

That position is totally unfair to male gay parents. You really think their motherless children should be confiscated at gunpoint?
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:21:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 12:51:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM, Garbanza wrote:

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.

That position is totally unfair to male gay parents. You really think their motherless children should be confiscated at gunpoint?

No, nobody thinks that. Where do you get all these ideas from, I wonder?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:24:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:21:42 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/13/2015 12:51:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM, Garbanza wrote:

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.

That position is totally unfair to male gay parents. You really think their motherless children should be confiscated at gunpoint?

No, nobody thinks that. Where do you get all these ideas from, I wonder?

"I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong."

-Garbagza
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:27:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:24:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:21:42 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/13/2015 12:51:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM, Garbanza wrote:

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.

That position is totally unfair to male gay parents. You really think their motherless children should be confiscated at gunpoint?

No, nobody thinks that. Where do you get all these ideas from, I wonder?

"I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong."

-Garbagza

?? Yeah, but the point of surrogacy is that children are produced who don't have mothers who want them. That's the whole idea, so if you take existing children who were purchased through surrogacy away from their male, gay parents, they still won't have mothers who want them, so why would anyone want to do that?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:28:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:27:15 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:24:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:21:42 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/13/2015 12:51:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM, Garbanza wrote:

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.

That position is totally unfair to male gay parents. You really think their motherless children should be confiscated at gunpoint?

No, nobody thinks that. Where do you get all these ideas from, I wonder?

"I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong."

-Garbagza

?? Yeah, but the point of surrogacy is that children are produced who don't have mothers who want them. That's the whole idea, so if you take existing children who were purchased through surrogacy away from their male, gay parents, they still won't have mothers who want them, so why would anyone want to do that?

Ask a gay male parent.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:41:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:55:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
This is silly, ridiculous, sexist, and stupefying. Women are able to use sperm from sperm banks without contacting the father, yet when men do this with eggs from an egg bank (which of course would necessitate a surrogate to deliver since he cannot deliver his own baby himself), all of a sudden cries for a ban on such activity surface?

Yes, and I think you've carried PC thinking way too far if you think that the contribution of the biological father and mother for the year following conception are equivalent. They're not.

And is this one year's difference worth a ban that would change lives throughout their lifetimes?

It wouldn't change their lives, because you'd have to have a life in the first place to change it. And yes, I think the difference is definitely worth the ban.

No one is saying that the treatment will be the same. What I'm questioning is why you're concluding that this difference in treatment warrants something as ridiculous as a ban on this activity.

It's like outlawing wheat because 1% of the population is allergic to gluten.

I don't think that there should be a ban on surrogacy, just on commercial surrogacy. So, for example, a woman could carry a baby for her siblings, children or friends. Women can act as surrogates until they're quite old, so sometimes you see women in their fifties who are pregnant with surrogate children.

There are lots of differences when it's not commercial. One is that the surrogate mother is in control of the situation, and she would only do it if she was convinced that the parents-to-be will do a good job. She would also have a close interaction with them, almost certainly, and an ongoing relationship with the child. Unlike with commercial surrogacy where the relationship is completely different. In that Thai example, one of the surrogate mothers thought she was carrying a baby for a childless couple. That goes to show how much power and knowledge she had in that commercial transaction (very little).

It's the same difference between donating a kidney to a family member who needs it and allowing selling of organs.

The man didn't take advantage of anyone...it's assumed the man paid the surrogates for their services, and that he doesn't plan to use HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN as sex slaves or whatever else this ridiculous article is insinuating. Moreover, the man has stated that he has the means to give HIS OWN BIOLOGICAL CHILDREN the means to a successful future life.

I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong. Of course sometimes it's impossible for infants to stay with their mothers, and then other arrangements can be made, but to design situations that deliberately separate infant and mother is not in the best interests of the child, and it doesn't make any difference how many investment accounts are opened in a two-year-old's name. It still needs its mother.

Hypothetical: What if a gay couple wanted to make two biological children, one of each male? Of course they'd need surrogates to do this. Why should they be prevented from doing so?

If they can find someone who will carry the babies for them without payment, then they can.

From the article:

"These are legal babies, they all have birth certificates," Ratpratan told Thailand's Channel 3 television station. "There are assets purchased under these babies' names. There are savings accounts for these babies, and investments. If he were to sell these babies, why would he give them these benefits?"

I never suggested that he created them for sex slavery. I only suggested that he deliberately arranged to obtain 16 motherless babies and he wanted more.

You didn't...but your article did. Your article is warped beyond reason.

And what is wrong with him conceiving 16 babies, babies that would be taken care of and for whom nannies were already arranged before they were confiscated by the government?

I'm not really sure how to respond to this. Obviously, a man who is based in Japan cannot provide adequate care to 16 babies who are based in Thailand. Attachment to a caregiver is essential to children's wellbeing and growth. Breastfeeding, and close interaction actually stops babies from getting sick, and in general a good relationship to your mother is central to most people's emotional lives. Of course, bad things happen and such a relationship isn't always possible, so people make do with what they have and they're okay. But to deliberately design a situation where children are produced without mothers seems an evil thing to do.

And opens up the situation for abuse - such as that case I cited above in Australia where a convicted paedophile arranged to get a daughter from Thailand. This daughter is designed to not have her biological mother around to protect her. He is her father and legal guardian, and he's been allowed to keep her even though he rejected her twin brother who had Down's syndrome. So yeah, the law is on his side, so you don't need to get all anxious that his rights are being infringed. But do you really think it's okay for paedophiles to be able to pay money and get children like this? I don't think it's okay.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 10:43:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 10:28:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:27:15 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:24:09 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/13/2015 10:21:42 PM, Garbanza wrote:
At 7/13/2015 12:51:34 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 7/12/2015 10:34:36 PM, Garbanza wrote:

OK, fine. I mean mothers. It's the biological mothers who give up their children for adoption, and it's biological mothers who are sidestepped with surrogacy. Sometimes it's fathers too, but it's mothers that I'm thinking about here.

That position is totally unfair to male gay parents. You really think their motherless children should be confiscated at gunpoint?

No, nobody thinks that. Where do you get all these ideas from, I wonder?

"I think this is what I'm objecting to - the idea that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers. I think that's wrong."

-Garbagza

?? Yeah, but the point of surrogacy is that children are produced who don't have mothers who want them. That's the whole idea, so if you take existing children who were purchased through surrogacy away from their male, gay parents, they still won't have mothers who want them, so why would anyone want to do that?

Ask a gay male parent.

What? I mean, why would anybody want to take children away from their existing parents, gay or otherwise.

Stop being so coy, greyparrot. If you've got something to say, say it. I've got no idea what point you're trying to make here.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:04:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sorry! That wasn't very polite. What I meant to say, and should have said, was could you please explain what you mean a bit more? Because I'm confused about what you mean. Thanks.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2015 11:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/13/2015 11:04:28 PM, Garbanza wrote:
Sorry! That wasn't very polite. What I meant to say, and should have said, was could you please explain what you mean a bit more? Because I'm confused about what you mean. Thanks.

You made the thread to outlaw surrogacy.

Male gay parents would have to break the law to have a surrogate child.

If caught, the law would take the child away, or give it to the biological mother on the reasoning that the idea "that young children don't need their mothers and that they're fine without mothers is wrong."

How could you possibly think this thread isn't a huge slap in the face to male gay parents?