- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Gay male couples face more challenges, higher costs to start a family
Posted on 6/23/23 at 1:44 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 6/23/23 at 1:44 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Bit of a derail, but why? If all parties agree, why should the government get involved and "limit" it? (Assuming no coercion and no minors, obviously)
Or are you acknowledging that a few hetero-couples will be negatively-impacted and are willing to accept that side-effect in order to deny access to homo-couples (for whom it is essentially the only way to have kids who share your genetics).
I believe it's a very perilous slope for humanity where people are increasingly opting to distance themselves from the human procreation process by contracting the bulk of it out to others. And of course, the woman who carries the child is ultimately (usually) entirely removed from the future life of the child. I think that's treading in very dangerous waters.
I'm not completely against surrogacy, I'm in particular open to its merits when involving family/friends. And I 100%, genuinely grieve for the women who cannot carry children. But I think we're already seeing it slip into very questionable territory. It's more and more a practice of the wealthy exploiting young women (gay and not). I don't think it's good for the culture, the child, or the exploited woman.
And yes, I'm certainly concerned about the use of surrogates for gay couples, but it's not limited to that.
Posted on 6/23/23 at 2:39 pm to Pettifogger
quote:Interesting. I have always considered you a thoughtful poster, and it is good to see a well-reasoned opinion, even when it is different from my own. Perhaps especially then.
I believe it's a very perilous slope for humanity where people are increasingly opting to distance themselves from the human procreation process by contracting the bulk of it out to others. And of course, the woman who carries the child is ultimately (usually) entirely removed from the future life of the child. I think that's treading in very dangerous waters.
I'm not completely against surrogacy, I'm in particular open to its merits when involving family/friends. And I 100%, genuinely grieve for the women who cannot carry children. But I think we're already seeing it slip into very questionable territory. It's more and more a practice of the wealthy exploiting young women (gay and not). I don't think it's good for the culture, the child, or the exploited woman.
And yes, I'm certainly concerned about the use of surrogates for gay couples, but it's not limited to that.
The whole "exploitation" concern seems very "nanny state" to me. Opinions will obviously vary.
As to the child, I doubt that a surrogate baby will suffer any ill-effects from the fact that (s)he was incubated in a womb other than the womb of his/her genetic mother, and I am not concerned at all about the surrogate never seeing the child again. She was well-compensated and is not particularly different in concept from any employee who risks his physical health in exchange for money. Emotionally, sure, I can see that people might see the leasing-out of a uterus somewhat differently than (for example) a dangerous job in the oilfield.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News