I'm not an expert on this topic, but my current opinion is that surrogacy should not be paid, you should not be able to financially compensate/"buy" for this "service", however it may be done voluntarily by a consenting individual.
The main reason is because when money enters the scene, undoubtedly corruption plagues it in ways that can never be fully controlled.
I see where you're going with this, but I have to disagree.
Look, you don't pay for the child from an orphanage in a lot of countries (Russia, for example), so by your logic (if I understood your point correctly) this fact should protect said child from being adopted by weirdos. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. Children can be adopted by weirdos whether they pay for them or not. If anything, payment is actually beneficial for the child's safety, because it censes out a large number of people who won't be able to provide proper care. And which child do you think would be more preferred by creeps: a free one, or one that costs money? Money is a pretty good filter.
The thing about surrogacy is that there are surrogacy
centres (or is it different in other countries? idk). Which means 1)Mothers are being protected and properly cared for, 2)They (as well as the adoptive parents) are
controlled and documented by the government. So why shouldn't mothers receive payment for risking their health and going through painful exhausting procedures?
Weirdos who don't want to pay a lot can just go to a dirt poor neighbourhood and purchase an already born child for a bottle of vodka instead of waiting for 9 month. Taking money away from surrogate moms won't solve literally anything imo. Besides, what if we're not talking about gays
(unusual on this site, I know)? What if it's a straight infertile couple? That would be their only hope of continuing their bloodline. Well, as a massive anticommie, I sure know that taking money out of the picture will make people care way less about their job. You don't want that when it comes to someone's only hope for having blood related kids. Moreover, good income means surrogate mother eats well, which is beneficial for the developing child.
>someone close to them, and purely altruistically because she knows they'll be good parents
1) In case of weirdos there is a good chance the close ones are also weirdos who wouldn't mind providing
2) How many women do you know who would voluntarily go through the torturous process of pregnancy and birth to give a child away? A majority of people just don't have that one friend and it has nothing to do with their personal qualities.
3) In the current system nothing is stopping a caring friend from volunteering no matter whether other mothers are being paid for the same thing or not.
>however it may be done voluntarily by a consenting individual
Wait.... So... Everything will work pretty much the same way? Except no centres that can provide protection and control because no stable funding. It definitely won't stop pedos who'd want to pay, it'll make thing much worse, actually. I don't see any point. Though, again, may be I don't understand how surrogacy works in other countries.
The kid will only be 1/2 part of your biological family
Yeah. It's more than 0 though.
Besides, there are different kinds of surrogate pregnancies. As far as I understand, in the case of straight couples, they take woman's egg, fertilise it with her husband's sperm, and just "grow" said egg (an embryo at that point) in surrogate mother's womb. In this case the child is a 100% biological offspring of their parents. But in the gay case it's 1/2, yes. But as I said, better than nothing.
>you will probably also have issues with the child that isn't biologically yours.
>Why not just adopt at that point?
You... You literally just answered your own question.
Either that or I misunderstood your point.
Because normal people in the real world are not the borderline-caricatures
Yes, this. "Offline" people are much more chill and down-to-Earth. And when you're mostly exposed to "online" people (who are online for a reason, mind you) you may not notice that. So the moral of the story is: go outside and do barbeque.
Marriage? Most homos sneer at that.
Doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Most white people nowadays don't want to reproduce. Should they not be allowed to then? Doesn't make any sense.
Gays are already fucking, why not let them marry at that point? Actually it
is important for christian gays, because, by the lore of Christianity, marriage is a union between couple and God. Pretty damn meaningful.
Also, marriage is a
tradition. It doesn't have to have a point. Traditions are a crucial part of a healthy society. Humans aren't calculating robots, man. Let people have fun.
Oh, and marriage also allows you hospital visits and money inheritance etc.
Some quotes in the post are just >greentext because I was absent for so long I forgot how to insert quotes on the Farms. Whoops.
LBTQIAIWOEKEOEO seperatiesm for many reasons
); imagine you being a good person that happens to be gay, and then you get a pig-faced retard IRL thinking that you're inferior or immoral.