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.
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.