Surrogacy should be illegal

[DougoMan]

This has gotta be a troll post, there's no way someone is this misguided/confused.

I'm dead serious.

Give it ten or twenty years as this continues to grow in popularity and I bet the problems with surrogacy will become more apparent.

So if Anandtech is still around in twenty years, I will revisit this post and we can talk about how right I was and how you all want to repeal the law banning surrogacy.

 

[mrjminer]

I'm dead serious.

Give it ten or twenty years as this continues to grow in popularity and I bet the problems with surrogacy will become more apparent.

So if Anandtech is still around in twenty years, I will revisit this post and we can talk about how right I was and how you all want to repeal the law banning surrogacy.

You must have a pretty small brain and pretty big balls to make that statement. If anything, selling organs will be far closer to legal (if not already by then), or grown organs will be used, so I don't think that selling something that gets soaked out of a vagina and flushed down the toilet, or putting it into a willing recipient is going to be an issue.

 

[her209]

You really need help thinking this through?! Does someone wipe your ass for you also? :^S

No, I'm just taking your dumbass comparison to its dumbass conclusion.

 

[Ns1]

Though it may help some families that cannot conceive, increasingly it is just used by rich women who do not want to undergo the pain and bodily wear that comes from giving birth.

I do not see how it is any different than paying someone for a kidney or liver. They both carry serious risks. I would not be surprised if childbirth were actually more dangerous.

The surrogates usually agree never to see the babies they give birth to again. In fact couples, like one a nurse friend of mine dealt with the other day, actually travel great distances to make sure they will be out of reach of their surrogates.

i don't see anything wrong with any of this.

 

[KGB]

I say it's a free market. The last thing we need is the government making up more rules for us. If one has the money and can find a willing surrogate, what's the big deal?

I also think a person ought have the right to sell their body parts.

How much for your brain?

Quite obvious it's low-mileage and you're certainly not using it any longer.

 

[PingSpike]

Anyone else thinking the primary purpose of surrogacy isn't to allow rich women to drink more cocktails and not gain weight...but to to allow women who can't conceive naturally to have a child? It isn't exactly easy or cheap to setup...it would be far cheaper to hire a personal trainer.

 

[AMDZen]

What is with the influx of idiots on this forum lately? OP should GTFO of America!

 

[Chiropteran]

The average ATOT response here reminds me a lot of this video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il3o4rmcLBc

Attitude seems to be that if you pay enough money you should be able to do whatever you want.

I won't comment directly on the OP's topic, but I will say a lot of posters here sound like they are posting from a position that lacks any sort of life experience.

"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

Yeah, right. If a couple adults want to burn down a house because the owner has different colored skin, they should be free to do so! The government needs to just mind it's own business. And if one consenting adult wants to pay another consenting adult to murder a particularly annoying person, that should be A-OK too! And if I get caught speeding, I should be allowed to offer the cop $500 to let the ticket slide, since it would just be an agreement between consenting adults.

 

[PingSpike]

The average ATOT response here reminds me a lot of this video-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il3o4rmcLBc

Attitude seems to be that if you pay enough money you should be able to do whatever you want.

I won't comment directly on the OP's topic, but I will say a lot of posters here sound like they are posting from a position that lacks any sort of life experience.

"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

Yeah, right. If a couple adults want to burn down a house because the owner has different colored skin, they should be free to do so! The government needs to just mind it's own business. And if one consenting adult wants to pay another consenting adult to murder a particularly annoying person, that should be A-OK too! And if I get caught speeding, I should be allowed to offer the cop $500 to let the ticket slide, since it would just be an agreement between consenting adults.

You fucking demolished that straw man.

 

[Ns1]

"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

Yeah, right. If a couple adults want to burn down a house because the owner has different colored skin, they should be free to do so!

in your example, i don't think the house owner consented to his house being burned down.

but if he did give consent, then [another consenting adult] should be able to burn his house down.

 

[MotF Bane]

You fucking demolished that straw man.

No kidding. P&N would be proud of that much abuse of straw.

 

[Gooberlx2]

"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

Yeah, right. If a couple adults want to burn down a house because the owner has different colored skin, murder, barf

Strawman much?

 

[Chiropteran]

You fucking demolished that straw man.

This is what I responded to:
"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

A straw man would be if I changed or modified the statement, made it into something else entirely, and then proved my modified statement false. I didn't do that, I proved the statement, as written, is ridiculous BS.


To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Where is the replaced similar yet unequivalent position? There isn't one. I just took his sentence and applied to to several other situations, proving it's ridiculousness. Not a straw man, although it looks like one since the argument I was ripping apart was already ridiculous without requiring me to change it at all.

 

[Ns1]

This is what I responded to:
"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

you added non-consenting adults to your example

 

[Chiropteran]

in your example, i don't think the house owner consented to his house being burned down.

but if he did give consent, then [another consenting adult] should be able to burn his house down.

The child never consented to being born a slave either. My ridiculous examples are perfectly equivalent to the surrogacy situation.


2 (or more) consenting adults , 1 unwilling victim (the child, the homeowner)

 

[Ns1]

The child never consented to being born a slave either. My ridiculous examples are perfectly equivalent to the surrogacy situation.


2 (or more) consenting adults , 1 unwilling victim (the child, the homeowner)

under that logic aren't all children unwilling victims?

 

[MotF Bane]

/facepalm

 

[Chiropteran]

Okay, here is a less ridiculous example. Couple of buddies out drinking, a few hours later they decide to drive home, stupid drunk. Why not? They are consenting adults.

Point is very simple: just because 2 consenting adults agree to do something, doesn't mean it should be legalized.

 

[Chiropteran]

under that logic aren't all children unwilling victims?

There isn't any other way to be alive other than being born as a child, so you kinda have to draw the line when it comes to a child born and raised by his natural parents.

But taking a child born to one person, and basically selling it to another person? In another age that was called slavery.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

This is what I responded to:
"Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults."

A straw man would be if I changed or modified the statement, made it into something else entirely, and then proved my modified statement false. I didn't do that, I proved the statement, as written, is ridiculous BS.


To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Where is the replaced similar yet unequivalent position? There isn't one. I just took his sentence and applied to to several other situations, proving it's ridiculousness. Not a straw man, although it looks like one since the argument I was ripping apart was already ridiculous without requiring me to change it at all.

In your terrible terrible example, if the owner of the house is consenting, then by all means burn it down. If he is not consenting, its not really a relevant example, is it?

Sell your private parts, sell your organs, sell your babymaker. STRAIGHT UP KILL YOURSELF. It really makes no difference to me, and certainly should not be of interest to the government.

Full control over your own body is a natural human right, and its tragic people have been convinced otherwise.

 

[MotF Bane]

Okay, here is a less ridiculous example. Couple of buddies out drinking, a few hours later they decide to drive home, stupid drunk. Why not? They are consenting adults.

Point is very simple: just because 2 consenting adults agree to do something, doesn't mean it should be legalized.

Are you trolling, or do you really not see the differences?

 

[Ns1]

There isn't any other way to be alive other than being born as a child, so you kinda have to draw the line when it comes to a child born and raised by his natural parents.

But taking a child born to one person, and basically selling it to another person? In another age that was called slavery.

<insert slippery slide here>

 

[Chiropteran]

In your terrible terrible example, if the owner of the house is consenting, then by all means burn it down. If he is not consenting, its not really applicable is it?

Sell your private parts, sell your organs, sell your babymaker. STRAIGHT UP KILL YOURSELF. It really makes no difference to me, and certainly should not be of interest to the government.

So you are in favor of allowing drunk driving?

 

[Chiropteran]

Are you trolling, or do you really not see the differences?

Of course I see the difference, that is the entire point. A broad statement such as "Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults" is idiotic, that is my point. If you try to apply it to just a couple of situations you can easily find cases where it would lead to chaos.

You could say "Government has no business getting involved in the behavior of consenting adults, as long as that behavior doesn't have any unintended side effects hurting other people or the environment indirectly", and I would find the statement less objectionable, but with those sort of wiggle-words the statement loses a lot of it's power and the arguments in favor of surogacy become weaker.

 

[Ns1]

/edit

fuck it, this thread is too ridiculous even for me.