Surrogacy Gone Bad

[dellinger63]

The ugliness and underbelly of surrogacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health...-legal-battle/

Why can a woman can legally lease out her womb for 9 months but not her vagina for nine minutes?

And why is a stranger and someone not even involved in the situation ultimately responsible when things go bad?

The stranger I'm referring to of course is the poor. overburdened taxpayer, trying to live his/her own life.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The ugliness and underbelly of surrogacy.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/04/health...-legal-battle/

Why can a woman can legally lease out her womb for 9 months but not her vagina for nine minutes?

And why is a stranger and someone not even involved in the situation ultimately responsible when things go bad?

The stranger I'm referring to of course is the poor. overburdened taxpayer, trying to live his/her own life.

In answer to the first question, society sees a benefit in surrogacy which, in most cases, grants a child to a couple who otherwise couldn't conceive. The other "lease"', in most cases, involves a form of slavery. I'm surprised you'd be unable to discern any difference.

This seems to be a pretty simple case of contract law gone wrong. One side thought a plain reading of "severe birth defect" applied. I have a hard time disagreeing with that. But the other side would have to undergo an abortion against their will. I also have a hard time saying that should have occurred.

Given the cluster F created by the contract dispute, who do you think should pay for the care if not the taxpayer?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

In answer to the first question, society sees a benefit in surrogacy which, in most cases, grants a child to a couple who otherwise couldn't conceive. The other "lease"', in most cases, involves a form of slavery. I'm surprised you'd be unable to discern any difference.

This seems to be a pretty simple case of contract law gone wrong. One side thought a plain reading of "severe birth defect" applied. I have a hard time disagreeing with that. But the other side would have to undergo an abortion against their will. I also have a hard time saying that should have occurred.

Given the cluster F created by the contract dispute, who do you think should pay for the care if not the taxpayer?

Please expound

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Please expound

http://www.polarisproject.org/human-...t-prostitution

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

http://www.polarisproject.org/human-...t-prostitution

i used to think prostitution should be legal, that it was no big deal..until i watched a show that detailed things like what's in the article.

there's far more involved then a woman providing a service for money. it's not as simple as i thought. pimps are many things...abusers, traffickers, pedophiles, murderers. they are a type of sexual abuser, very good at finding the right girls to use for their 'trade'.
and good luck if a prostitute ever calls for help, as the stigma makes them seem less than human, and unworthy of sympathy or help from the police. and rape? that never happens to a prostitute...
they have a very, very hard time breaking out of that way of life.

[NTamm1215]

Leaving Las Vegas does a good job showing some of the downsides of prostitution.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i used to think prostitution should be legal, that it was no big deal..until i watched a show that detailed things like what's in the article.

there's far more involved then a woman providing a service for money. it's not as simple as i thought. pimps are many things...abusers, traffickers, pedophiles, murderers. they are a type of sexual abuser, very good at finding the right girls to use for their 'trade'.
and good luck if a prostitute ever calls for help, as the stigma makes them seem less than human, and unworthy of sympathy or help from the police. and rape? that never happens to a prostitute...
they have a very, very hard time breaking out of that way of life.

But are these very real abuses against prostitutes a result of selling sex for money or a result of selling sex for money being illegal?

A look at one of the legal brothels in Nevada- the women there are independent contractors. The brothel takes 50 percent of the earnings.

http://www.businessinsider.com/insid...rothel-2013-10

A big step forward in protecting women, even if states are unwilling to legalize the sex trade, would be at least not charging those who attempt to report rape or assault with solicitation. Certainly what most states are doing now isn't working.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

In answer to the first question, society sees a benefit in surrogacy which, in most cases, grants a child to a couple who otherwise couldn't conceive. The other "lease"', in most cases, involves a form of slavery. I'm surprised you'd be unable to discern any difference.

Interesting you mentioned slavery. The fact many surrogates, especially those in foreign countries (India as a prime example) are 'cared' for in baby factories and their babies are the 'property' of the agency both in the womb and out would seem to be some sort of slavery to me. Especially when these 'brown' women are fertilized with a Caucasian egg from wealthy Americans.

The woman in this case seemed to do it out of financial need and not sure how that differs with many women leasing their vaginas.

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

Given the cluster F created by the contract dispute, who do you think should pay for the care if not the taxpayer?

I'll play captain obvious and say THE PARTIES INVOLVED in creating the cluster F.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the Connecticut woman who wanted the baby, then wanted to force the surrogate to abort was infertile because of abortion(s)?