Saddest part is, the surrogate might very well have no say in the matter. I've heard stories where the surrogates have no rights, and if the parents, for whatever reason, change their minds...well, they have final say.
Not familiar with this particular case, but this may be a legally forced abortion against the wishes of the woman actually carrying the child inside her.
Again, not saying that's the case but...how fucking fucked would that be?
surrogates are contracted to be baby ovens. technically they could run off and have an abortion without the contracting company knowing, but if they did, they'd be in big trouble and lose a lot of money. they could be sued by the parents. it would be a big scandal. surrogacy companies screen the surrogates a lot usually (its a big money business) and tend to use repeats.
of course the surrogate can't be forced to have an abortion, legally. any contract allowing that (which I doubt exists) would be void against public policy.
the thing that makes a scenario like this so unlikely is the insane amount of money it costs to do a surrogacy - something like 200k - so I doubt the parents are going to just walk away from it. they likely have to sign contracts that they can't back out of, either.
Yeah, pretty much. All of the methods of conception and obtaining children outside of the old fashioned one are deleterious to babies and to society. Women who are unwilling to birth babies themselves can't be trusted with them. And women who can't have babies should be the ones to adopt when that becomes a necessity. All of this was a solved problem before mad scientist doctors went experimenting.
Now, that is my opinion. If you ask me what the government should do about it, that's a more involved question.
Dude, no. Some women flat out cannot conceive or carry to term and surrogacy might be their sole chance to do what we're meant to do and reproduce.
Now while there is the argument relating to the why of their inability to conceive, it's not a simple case of "bad breeder" that would mean whatever genetic offspring they produce would be a mule [in the sterile sense of the word] and/or worse depending on other genetic factors.
Now while there is the argument relating to the why of their inability to conceive, it's not a simple case of "bad breeder"
Policy can't account for every single person's particulars. On balance, it's better that those that cannot reproduce don't. You mess with that, I think, at your peril.
Dude, no. Some women flat out cannot conceive or carry to term and surrogacy might be their sole chance to do what we're meant to do and reproduce.
For all of history, people did just fine with a small percentage of people who were unable to reproduce for such reasons. Things worked just fine. It may be sad for the people involved, and I agree that "just adopt" is not reasonable advice to people who want their own children.
But it is far more unseemly to allow the abuse of a woman's body, and only by wealthy lowlifes who can afford to spend $200k on it. What's more, such unnatural things sound good when it's the first step, and then quickly transform into nightmarish, dystopian scenarios when you follow the logic to ts conclusion. Things like designer babies.
Late term abortions are acceptable but the abortionist should be required to deliver the fetus, put it on a slab, and then destroy it in front of the mother and a panel of witnesses using the same method they would have done in the womb. A video of the complete procedure must be made available for public records.
Hmm, I thought that sounded extreme while writing it but then I realized the Moloch-worshippers would be perfectly fine with this.
Didn't know you were so happy to bring up one of your many, many incorrect predictions.
Oh, and she's quoting DHS. But we all know why you hate her.
Remember when you supported the pro-abortion candidate in the Philippines because he was male and his pro-life opponent was... horror of horrors, a woman?
I'm always reliably informed that these cases "do not happen" and that for that reason, there should be no restrictions on abortions in these cases.
Just like grooming and CRT in schools "does not happen", and it's a good thing that it is.
Hi I'd like to buy a puppy.
You know what never mind
Saddest part is, the surrogate might very well have no say in the matter. I've heard stories where the surrogates have no rights, and if the parents, for whatever reason, change their minds...well, they have final say.
Not familiar with this particular case, but this may be a legally forced abortion against the wishes of the woman actually carrying the child inside her.
Again, not saying that's the case but...how fucking fucked would that be?
surrogates are contracted to be baby ovens. technically they could run off and have an abortion without the contracting company knowing, but if they did, they'd be in big trouble and lose a lot of money. they could be sued by the parents. it would be a big scandal. surrogacy companies screen the surrogates a lot usually (its a big money business) and tend to use repeats.
of course the surrogate can't be forced to have an abortion, legally. any contract allowing that (which I doubt exists) would be void against public policy.
the thing that makes a scenario like this so unlikely is the insane amount of money it costs to do a surrogacy - something like 200k - so I doubt the parents are going to just walk away from it. they likely have to sign contracts that they can't back out of, either.
It is criminal that surrogacy is permitted.
"If this be liberty, God save us from it."
- Oliver Cromwell
Is it really a big deal? You just implant the egg into some chick and she gets the stretch marks. Is it criminal just because it's "unnatural"?
Oh look, little worm! Back for more fun?
Yeah, pretty much. All of the methods of conception and obtaining children outside of the old fashioned one are deleterious to babies and to society. Women who are unwilling to birth babies themselves can't be trusted with them. And women who can't have babies should be the ones to adopt when that becomes a necessity. All of this was a solved problem before mad scientist doctors went experimenting.
Now, that is my opinion. If you ask me what the government should do about it, that's a more involved question.
Dude, no. Some women flat out cannot conceive or carry to term and surrogacy might be their sole chance to do what we're meant to do and reproduce.
Now while there is the argument relating to the why of their inability to conceive, it's not a simple case of "bad breeder" that would mean whatever genetic offspring they produce would be a mule [in the sterile sense of the word] and/or worse depending on other genetic factors.
Policy can't account for every single person's particulars. On balance, it's better that those that cannot reproduce don't. You mess with that, I think, at your peril.
For all of history, people did just fine with a small percentage of people who were unable to reproduce for such reasons. Things worked just fine. It may be sad for the people involved, and I agree that "just adopt" is not reasonable advice to people who want their own children.
But it is far more unseemly to allow the abuse of a woman's body, and only by wealthy lowlifes who can afford to spend $200k on it. What's more, such unnatural things sound good when it's the first step, and then quickly transform into nightmarish, dystopian scenarios when you follow the logic to ts conclusion. Things like designer babies.
Late term abortions are acceptable but the abortionist should be required to deliver the fetus, put it on a slab, and then destroy it in front of the mother and a panel of witnesses using the same method they would have done in the womb. A video of the complete procedure must be made available for public records.
Hmm, I thought that sounded extreme while writing it but then I realized the Moloch-worshippers would be perfectly fine with this.
The women won't be though. You can't fight biology. The reason third trimester abortion is at all possible, is because she cannot see her child.
Have you met one who is not barren and childless?
They can't help it.
And yet if they had a kid, biology would prevent them from wanting the kid harmed in any way.
Exceptions that prove the rule. Like I said, biology works against it.
That might be where I got the idea...
Or anti-smoking activists.
Sounds like a modest proposal.
Pass the butter.
Healthy babies with no legal issues are always in demand for adoptions.
That's not how it works. Or maybe I just disagree with your wording. It's implantation of an egg fertilized outside the surrogate into her.
Is this legit?
Unverified so far.
Yes, Lila Rose is definitely in the tank for the lezzes.
Didn't know you were so happy to bring up one of your many, many incorrect predictions.
Oh, and she's quoting DHS. But we all know why you hate her.
Remember when you supported the pro-abortion candidate in the Philippines because he was male and his pro-life opponent was... horror of horrors, a woman?
Can you explain what part? The part where she echoes DHS warnings about churches and pro-life organizations being vandalized, as they were?
Didn't see your reply. You're too damn fast, Fast Impy.
OK, so abortion is the literal murder of children, but you'll support that over a color that you don't like?
It's not 'propaganda' when dozens of churches and pro-life organizations have been attacked, Mr. Brain Dead.
OK, so you're more mad at 'symbolism' than you are at what you claim to regard as the murder of children?