Tanya 93



Not for 10 year old kids with FAS or cerebral palsy or a record.

These kids need forever families too.

And often they are same sex couples or single parents that want to expand the love of their families.

Not allowed Tanya, they're better off without a single mother to care for them. And def can't have them catch the gay.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

ME92 said:

---

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

You can never tell what's satire these days...

'Medical Journal Floats Concept of Using Braindead Women As Surrogates Through "Whole Body Gestational Donation'
https://reduxx.info/medical-journal-floats-concept-of-using-braindead-women-as-surrogates-through-whole-body-gestational-donation/

Quote:

---

Written by Anna Smajdor, a Professor of Practical Philosophy at the University of Oslo, Norway, the article proposes that it may be viable to utilize the donated bodies of women for gestational purposes in the same manner as donated organs are used.

"I suggest if we are happy to accept organ donation in general, the issues raised by whole-body gestational donation are differences of degree rather than substantive new concerns," Smajdor writes in her abstract.

"As with many surrogacy arrangements, commissioning parents may prefer to create an embryo for implantation using their own gametes or those of donors. Thus, impregnation could be a surgical affair, preceded and followed by appropriate hormonal therapy to ensure maximal chance of success."

---

---

That is disgusting.

---

But if it brings child to a loving couple and the person has agreed to it (like you do for organ donation), is it really?/sarcasm/slippery slope

---

I know that this is sarcasm but the world is crazy and some people will say exactly this in all sincerity.

Organ donation is meant to extend an existing life or return an existing life to normal functioning. The assumption is that that existing life was hurt due to disease or injury or birth defect. This is not saying that a male can decide that not having a uterus and ovaries is a birth defect so he deserves a transplant.

This proposal is to use brain dead women to gestate and bring forth a new life because a person has decided that the current available lives (those children available through adoption) don't meet his standards.

Totally different ideas.

And people don't deserve things just because somebody declares them a "loving couple".

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

No gay adoption, no single parent adoption, and no IVF for heterosexual couples either. There is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt, so it's a completely baseless argument to get into the weeds about "is it better to let a kid grow up in an orphanage" or the like.

---

If there is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt then why is there an overabundance of children in need of adoption? And since there are a lot of kids who have not been adopted then your insistence on them being adopted only by willing hetero couples by default indicates that you think they'd be better off left in the system than with a single mother or a same sex couple.

Further, it is an odd stance to insert yourself into a heterosexuals reproductive choices (IVF) and tell them they are only allowed to adopt.

Due to your zealousness I must assume you've adopted multiple children who were 12 and older?? If so then I applaud you and your willingness to offer a loving home to your non-biological children.

---

This is utterly devoid of logic. Rather, it's a sad attempt at emotional blackmail to make me feel bad about my position instead of addressing what I actually said.

If allowing gays/single parents to adopt and IVF solved the issue of 12 years olds being "in the system," then that problem would be solved. Instead, they just compete for babies and pay to create new ones. Since there are an abundance of two-parent, heterosexual homes (which is the ideal) waiting to adopt babies, I'm failing to see how my position does anything but consider the well-being of the children over the desires of the adults. Which is how it should work.

Kids aren't some tool for your social justice war.

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

It is not appropriate or normal to allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples. Period.

NOT SORRY.

Kvetch said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

No gay adoption, no single parent adoption, and no IVF for heterosexual couples either. There is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt, so it's a completely baseless argument to get into the weeds about "is it better to let a kid grow up in an orphanage" or the like.

---

If there is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt then why is there an overabundance of children in need of adoption? And since there are a lot of kids who have not been adopted then your insistence on them being adopted only by willing hetero couples by default indicates that you think they'd be better off left in the system than with a single mother or a same sex couple.

Further, it is an odd stance to insert yourself into a heterosexuals reproductive choices (IVF) and tell them they are only allowed to adopt.

Due to your zealousness I must assume you've adopted multiple children who were 12 and older?? If so then I applaud you and your willingness to offer a loving home to your non-biological children.

---

This is utterly devoid of logic. Rather, it's a sad attempt at emotional blackmail to make me feel bad about my position instead of addressing what I actually said.

If allowing gays/single parents to adopt and IVF solved the issue of 12 years olds being "in the system," then that problem would be solved. Instead, they just compete for babies and pay to create new ones. Since there are an abundance of two-parent, heterosexual homes (which is the ideal) waiting to adopt babies, I'm failing to see how my position does anything but consider the well-being of the children over the desires of the adults. Which is how it should work.

Kids aren't some tool for your social justice war.

---

lol, I'm extremely conservative not a SJW nice try tho. Limiting the type of people who can adopt necessarily limits the amount of children who will be adopted. In your opinion only heterosexual couples should be allowed to adopt so more children will remain in the system. It's not devoid of logic, it is simple math.

Your insistence that homosexual/lesbian/and single parents should not be allowed to adopt requires that you think children are better off living in an orphanage than with the lesser quality family set.

I'll say it again, I think you can have a valid debate on whether same sex couples rearing children will cause issues/should or should not be allowed. Clearly you think it will be detrimental to the child, fair enough. In thinking so you then have to say it is better for the child to potentially stay forever in the system than to have a family.

I am at a loss why you don't think a married couple should have the option for IVF. Or that single women/men should be allowed to adopt a child. Again, if they shouldn't be allowed to adopt then that is one less child that gets adopted.

There are enough awful things in the world that I just can't force myself to be upset about a couple with significant means obtaining a child via surrogacy. That kid is immediately better off than 99.99% of all human children who've ever been born.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

It is not appropriate or normal to allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples. Period.

NOT SORRY.

---

In an ideal world everyone would have a mother and a father. But this isn't an ideal world, and the evidence is OVERWHELMING that kids in two parent households, even if both parents are the same sex, do so much better on a population level than kids in single parent homes or the foster system.

If your choice is to be raised by a single mother or a gay couple, you're just an ideological fool if you choose the former. The numbers all clearly say you're better off with the gay couple. And that gap is even greater among kids in the foster system.

Kvetch said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

---

Should hetero couples who can't naturally conceive accept that the natural result of their union is to be childless? Or do we as a society accept that IVF, adoption, and surrogacy (all of which require money therefore the child is being "bought") are valid alternatives for them to have a family that isn't childless?

Again, I think there is merit to debate whether rearing a child in a same sex marriage would have detrimental impact. But then again is it better that the child be reared in an orphanage instead?

I have a friend who is a single lady and has adopted two children, should that not be allowed since there is no male figure in the household thus the kids would be better off in an orphanage?

---

No gay adoption, no single parent adoption, and no IVF for heterosexual couples either. There is a waiting list a mile long of people looking to adopt, so it's a completely baseless argument to get into the weeds about "is it better to let a kid grow up in an orphanage" or the like. The problem is that people want to adopt babies, not 12 year olds. Allowing IVF or surrogacy doesn't do anything to change that problem.

I'd advocate that our resources be spent on reforming and improving the fostering and adoption process instead of intentionally creating and selling new babies for the gratification of adults. Also, we should accept that there is an ideal environment to rear children, and that is a two-parent, heterosexual household. It is extremely well documented that each parent plays an integral but unique role in the development of a child. No amount of progressive beliefs will ever change that biological fact.

I sympathize with those that can't have children if their own for one reason or another, but I don't think making children and wombs into a commodity is a just solution for that sad reality.

---

The waiting list is for infants and toddlers. There is very low demand among married heterosexual couples for children over the age of 3.

Lol I thought this thread got nuked, but no my 100% mainstream views got censored.

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

---

Should hetero couples who can't naturally conceive accept that the natural result of their union is to be childless? Or do we as a society accept that IVF, adoption, and surrogacy (all of which require money therefore the child is being "bought") are valid alternatives for them to have a family that isn't childless?

Again, I think there is merit to debate whether rearing a child in a same sex marriage would have detrimental impact. But then again is it better that the child be reared in an orphanage instead?

I have a friend who is a single lady and has adopted two children, should that not be allowed since there is no male figure in the household thus the kids would be better off in an orphanage?

---

As soon as I saw the first post here, I knew the same, illogical response would come. Possessing the equipment to reproduce in your union, although broken, is not the same as not possessing the equipment at all. The expectations are also quite different. One set of parents likely underwent testing to see why the woman couldn't conceive……..the other certainly saved that money.

The single parent presents a different set of circumstances. Back of the line as long as there are couples wanting children.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

It is not appropriate or normal to allow children to be adopted by homosexual couples. Period.

NOT SORRY.

---

How many older kids have you adopted?

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

B-1 83 said:

---

ToHntortoFsh said:

---

Monkeypoxfighter said:

---

This thread has gone all over the place, and I stay out of the gay relationship aspects of such threads (I don't care). One question I have pondered though, is if the straight community is to accept that the gay relationships are a natural thing, shouldn't the gay community accept that the natural result of their unions is to be childless?

---

Should hetero couples who can't naturally conceive accept that the natural result of their union is to be childless? Or do we as a society accept that IVF, adoption, and surrogacy (all of which require money therefore the child is being "bought") are valid alternatives for them to have a family that isn't childless?

Again, I think there is merit to debate whether rearing a child in a same sex marriage would have detrimental impact. But then again is it better that the child be reared in an orphanage instead?

I have a friend who is a single lady and has adopted two children, should that not be allowed since there is no male figure in the household thus the kids would be better off in an orphanage?

---

As soon as I saw the first post here, I knew the same, illogical response would come. Possessing the equipment to reproduce in your union, although broken, is not the same as not possessing the equipment at all. The expectations are also quite different. One set of parents likely underwent testing to see why the woman couldn't conceive……..the other certainly saved that money.

The single parent presents a different set of circumstances. Back of the line as long as there are couples wanting children.

---

The gay couples and single parents regularly adopt the kids those perfect hetero couples would never adopt


This is the problem. People want to proclaim that only straight married couples should adopt and surrogates should be illegal. Not to mention those that think IVF is immoral.


Apparently they always know best and best is always a group home instead of gay parents.

Nitro Power said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

---

So a group home with just a single person in charge is better?

I never said that. I was referring to the OP and a couple not only "expecting" a child, but paying a surrogate for a baby.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

---

So a group home with just a single person in charge is better?

---

Not sure how you deduced that I made such an implication, when I specifically state a child needs both the qualities only a man and woman can provide. A number of post on this thread automatically assume this child is in a loving home? Does anyone here actually know that to be the case? How many cases of adopted parents who "were taking child to loving homes" ended up in sex trafficking or child porn? I am not saying this is the case here, but I am also not saying this child is going to a loving home.

Nitro Power said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

---

So a group home with just a single person in charge is better?

---

Not sure how you deduced that I made such an implication, when I specifically state a child needs both the qualities only a man and woman can provide. A number of post on this thread automatically assume this child is in a loving home? Does anyone here actually know that to be the case? How many cases of adopted parents who "were taking child to loving homes" ended up in sex trafficking or child porn? I am not saying this is the case here, but I am also not saying this child is going to a loving home.

---

And very religious married hetero couples do not provide a good home either


So what do we do with these older kids that no hetero couples wants? Just say no gay couple or single parent can adopt?


It isn't your belief, but it is the belief of others on here.


As someone who grew up with foster kids in our home, they just want a parent to love them. And after about 3, that doesn't often happen for adoption

Nitro Power said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

---

So a group home with just a single person in charge is better?

---

Not sure how you deduced that I made such an implication, when I specifically state a child needs both the qualities only a man and woman can provide. A number of post on this thread automatically assume this child is in a loving home? Does anyone here actually know that to be the case? How many cases of adopted parents who "were taking child to loving homes" ended up in sex trafficking or child porn? I am not saying this is the case here, but I am also not saying this child is going to a loving home.

---

And very religious married hetero couples do not provide a good home either


So what do we do with these older kids that no hetero couples wants? Just say no gay couple or single parent can adopt?


It isn't your belief, but it is the belief of others on here.


As someone who grew up with foster kids in our home, they just want a parent to love them. And after about 3, that doesn't often happen for adoption

---

I didn't imply this either. You continue to try and make what I am saying about something that it is not.

---

Sorry if you thought I did. Not trying to insult you at all.


But these kids want families.
Hetero couples aren't stepping up to adopt them after toddlerhood.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

---

So a group home with just a single person in charge is better?

---

Not sure how you deduced that I made such an implication, when I specifically state a child needs both the qualities only a man and woman can provide. A number of post on this thread automatically assume this child is in a loving home? Does anyone here actually know that to be the case? How many cases of adopted parents who "were taking child to loving homes" ended up in sex trafficking or child porn? I am not saying this is the case here, but I am also not saying this child is going to a loving home.

---

And very religious married hetero couples do not provide a good home either


So what do we do with these older kids that no hetero couples wants? Just say no gay couple or single parent can adopt?


It isn't your belief, but it is the belief of others on here.


As someone who grew up with foster kids in our home, they just want a parent to love them. And after about 3, that doesn't often happen for adoption

---

I didn't imply this either. You continue to try and make what I am saying about something that it is not.

---

Sorry if you thought I did. Not trying to insult you at all.


But these kids want families.
Hetero couples aren't stepping up to adopt them after toddlerhood.

---

Fair and agree.

Tanya 93 said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

BallerStaf2003 said:

---

It's a very light hearted joke.

I know 4 gay families in Texas with 1-4 children. The children are not abused, happy, and love their dads. They do well in school, have friends, and are well adjusted.

And you, have a picture of a gay family and think you know anything about them.

It's sad, and dangerous.

---

God created men and women with different inherent traits. A child needs both of those qualities. While a gay or lesbian couple may be good parents, they are not capable of providing a child with all the needs laid out by God. No matter how bad gay and lesbian couples want it to be. This coming from someone who has very dear friends that have a child via IVF.

---

So a group home with just a single person in charge is better?

---

gay parents are terrible models of masculinity and femininity. Group homes don't necessarily deprive children of masculine and feminine role models, and they're not faced with the crushing guilt that comes with a child's natural desire for a mother and a father when being deprived of one or the other.

Even if it were true that very often the choice is between a gay couple or group home, and I think the argument for that VERY tenuous, why should we just automatically assume it's better? It's not clear to me that it is. Not even close.

Obviously IVF and surrogacy are extremely immoral, and often have deadly consequences for babies. This is the commoditization of children for the enjoyment of adults. Sick and depraved any way you slice it. Babies have no rights in any exchange involving these practices.

IVF =/= surrogacy

Of course you must have IVF for surrogacy, but IVF is most commonly used for heterosexual couples who can't conceive via intercourse for whatever reason. The morality of IVF and/or surrogacy are separate topics and should be treated as such.

Quote:

---

The gay couples and single parents regularly adopt the kids those perfect hetero couples would never adopt

---

This is an absolute lie perpetrated by the left.

agent-maroon said:

---

IVF =/= surrogacy

Of course you must have IVF for surrogacy, but IVF is most commonly used for heterosexual couples who can't conceive via intercourse for whatever reason. The morality of IVF and/or surrogacy are separate topics and should be treated as such.

---

They're immoral for the same reason. They separate procreation from the procreative act. In the case of surrogacy, there's also the intrusion of a 3rd party.

redcrayon said:

---

Quote:

---

The gay couples and single parents regularly adopt the kids those perfect hetero couples would never adopt

---

This is an absolute lie perpetrated by the left.

---

So why do so many of the older or challenged kids end up in the homes of gay couple or single parents?


And why do so many age out?


This will be fun when you try to prove that doesn't happen


Have a great day sweetie.

Tanya 93 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

Quote:

---

The gay couples and single parents regularly adopt the kids those perfect hetero couples would never adopt

---

This is an absolute lie perpetrated by the left.

---

So why do so many of the older or challenged kids end up in the homes of gay couple or single parents?


And why do so many age out?


This will be fun when you try to prove that doesn't happen


Have a great day sweetie.

---

For one thing in a lot of instances, social workers forgo heterosexual married couples in favor of gay couples for adoption.

The older children by and large end up in foster care situations when they're already older. It's not that they've grown up in group homes their whole lives. The state has removed the child from an abusive situation, both parents are in prison, they get strung along in the system before they're ever released for adoption in the hopes that their parents can rectify their situation. These children come with even more baggage, and the reasons you should not adopt them to a gay couple are exacerbated. They need stability most of all.

Quote:

---

They're immoral for the same reason. They separate procreation from the procreative act.

---

I always thought that the procreative act was the union of sperm & egg (fertilization). Perhaps it would be better termed the "procreative event" or intercourse labeled the "precipitating pre-procreative act" or some other combination of semantic clarifications.

But best of luck with your future as a moral authority!

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

They're immoral for the same reason. They separate procreation from the procreative act.

---

I always thought that the procreative act was the union of sperm & egg (fertilization). Perhaps it would be better termed the "procreative event" or intercourse labeled the "precipitating pre-procreative act" or some other combination of semantic clarifications.

But best of luck with your future as a moral authority!

---

I'm not speaking authoritatively. I'm speaking truthfully.

Any unnatural intervention in the process of procreation (the marital/procreative act is understood here to mean the first step in the process of procreation), is immoral.

You're giving an opinion which may or may not be the "truth"

agent-maroon said:

---

You're giving an opinion which may or may not be the "truth"

---

I guess if your presumption is that the truth of the matter is unknowable, that's what you would think of course. Even if all you could say is that it's "probably" bad, shouldn't we not do it then?

Bob Lee said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

You're giving an opinion which may or may not be the "truth"

---

I guess if your presumption is that the truth of the matter is unknowable, that's what you would think of course. Even if all you could say is that it's "probably" bad, shouldn't we not do it then?

---

I'm thinking that "presumption" is the key word in our current conversation. You previously stated that "any unnatural intervention in the process of procreation (the marital/procreative act is understood here to mean the first step in the process of procreation), is immoral." A couple of scenarios to consider:

A 27yo woman has had emergency surgery for her second ectopic surgery. Her physicians have attributed her ectopic pregnancies to partial blockage of the Fallopian tubes resulting from a rape at age 14. The rapist infected her with multiple antibiotic resistant STD's which were eventually treated successfully but caused the scarring that led to this blockage. She and her husband are distraught and ask you about IVF. How would you word the response about the "obvious" immorality of their inquiry?

After several hours of labor, the monitors reveal that the unborn baby is in trouble and will die without immediate delivery (last act of procreation). The only intervention is an emergency surgical delivery via C/section. The natural course of this situation would be to let the baby die or recover on it's own. Would the C/section be immoral?

agent-maroon said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

You're giving an opinion which may or may not be the "truth"

---

I guess if your presumption is that the truth of the matter is unknowable, that's what you would think of course. Even if all you could say is that it's "probably" bad, shouldn't we not do it then?

---

I'm thinking that "presumption" is the key word in our current conversation. You previously stated that "any unnatural intervention in the process of procreation (the marital/procreative act is understood here to mean the first step in the process of procreation), is immoral." A couple of scenarios to consider:

A 27yo woman has had emergency surgery for her second ectopic surgery. Her physicians have attributed her ectopic pregnancies to partial blockage of the Fallopian tubes resulting from a rape at age 14. The rapist infected her with multiple antibiotic resistant STD's which were eventually treated successfully but caused the scarring that led to this blockage. She and her husband are distraught and ask you about IVF. How would you word the response about the "obvious" immorality of their inquiry?

After several hours of labor, the monitors reveal that the unborn baby is in trouble and will die without immediate delivery (last act of procreation). The only intervention is an emergency surgical delivery via C/section. The natural course of this situation would be to let the baby die or recover on it's own. Would the C/section be immoral?

---

I'm not arguing against medical intervention. I'm arguing against calling human beings into existence through some artificial means.

Delivery is not a part of the process of procreation.

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing against medical intervention. I'm arguing against calling human beings into existence through some artificial means.

---

Acceptance of the intervention we agree on then. Which is artificial - the sperm of the husband or the egg of the wife?

Quote:

---

Delivery is not a part of the process of procreation.

---

I'm not aware of any examples of human procreation that did not involve a delivery of the baby. Could you please elaborate?

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not arguing against medical intervention. I'm arguing against calling human beings into existence through some artificial means.

---

Acceptance of the intervention we agree on then. Which is artificial - the sperm of the husband or the egg of the wife?

Quote:

---

Delivery is not a part of the process of procreation.

---

I'm not aware of any examples of human procreation that did not involve a delivery of the baby. Could you please elaborate?

---

I think you understand the distinction. The point at which a human being has been created is the end of the process of reproduction. It doesn't entail every stage in a human's development after it's already come into existence. Procreation is not meant to be a technical procedure wherein we discard human embryos deemed unworthy. They're begotten through an act of love between a man and his wife. The artificial means through which these humans are created, commodified, and sold in a marketplace robs them of the dignity owed us all by virtue of the fact that we're human beings.

Sq 17 said:

---

Irish 2.0 said:

---

In this instance I agree it is very poor. But I know many infertile couples that have used a surrogate and her belief that the practice is sick and selfish is not accurate.

---

That the practice of surrogacy "is sick and selfish" is an OPINION
People also believe that dog breeders ( puppy mills ) are considered morally wrong
I am almost certain one of the gay men contributed the SPERM to make this child happen
Generally with infertile heterosexual couples they contribute they contribute eggs or sperm or both to make the child.

The problem is human nature
people do NOT want to raise OTHER people's kids, and surrogacy is a way for people who lack one of the necessary components ( womb, egg, sperm) to have a child that is at least in part their genetic material.

Yes it would be better for the world if this couple that obviously has a great deal of resources took in 2-3 orphans from distressed regions of the world but that is not how they want to spend their money and sadly their demand has created a supply and hence a market

---

The good and natural desire to procreate doesn't imply a right to a child through IVF any more than the single man who desires a companion has the right to a wife. The rights in this context belong to the children. They have a right to not be conceived through an act of fornication or adultery. They have a right to be carried by their mother in her womb.