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

[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)?

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

i'm not sure if those abuses are due to the illegality of prostitution. i think in most cases, the women are being used and abused by their pimp-would those actions go away if prostitition was legal and regulated?
prostitutes are stigmatized, so authorities are of NO help. it's as tho they view the prostitutes as less than human, and deserving of anything that happens to them because they chose that lifestyle. but quite often, they didn't choose it. and then they can't get out. and it's hard to get help, because they are a social pariah, and have no support system.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm not sure if those abuses are due to the illegality of prostitution. i think in most cases, the women are being used and abused by their pimp-would those actions go away if prostitition was legal and regulated?
prostitutes are stigmatized, so authorities are of NO help. it's as tho they view the prostitutes as less than human, and deserving of anything that happens to them because they chose that lifestyle. but quite often, they didn't choose it. and then they can't get out. and it's hard to get help, because they are a social pariah, and have no support system.

That's what I wonder, too- the brothels in Nevada seem to be very tightly regulated, but even if every state legalized brothels, there would still be abuse on the streets. I think the US is very divided on what the real "problem" of prostitution is- is it the immorality of sex for money or is it violence against women? I mean, I know what I think the problem is, but as you point out, the way prostitutes are treated by law enforcement and how they are stigmatized in the community speaks to others having more issues with sex than they do with violence.

Al Jazeera America (look! Dell's head just exploded! Hi, Dell. Teasing you. ) has a thoughtful opinion piece, written after Canada's Supreme Court struck down the laws against prostitution, stating the laws violated women's right to safety:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...utionlaws.html

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Al Jazeera America (look! Dell's head just exploded! Hi, Dell. Teasing you. ) has a thoughtful opinion piece, written after Canada's Supreme Court struck down the laws against prostitution, stating the laws violated women's right to safety:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...utionlaws.html

Wow I must say I agree with most of the op-ed, especially pointing out the difference between a young girl who is kidnapped and forced into the trade and a law student advertising services on Craig’s list.

I think writing a law making it illegal for a third party to profit off the lease of an adult individual’s vagina, anus, penis or mouth unless being a State licensed leaser or publicist with restrictions similar to strip joints on where they can do business etc. would be a start in seeking to protect sex workers. It would also make it easier for suspicious wives to do a drive-by check.

Of course, exclusions have to be made for the underage girls and boys involved and they need to be treated like victims with their customers, pimps and sometimes parents treated as felons and in some case pedophiles.

There was a famous prostitute in Chicago, completely independent of a pimp etc. who was around in the late 60’s and 70’s. A neighbor who is a retired Cook County judge said she appeared before him at least 100 times. Her name was Mailbox Mary and she earned the moniker by carrying self-addressed, stamped envelopes with her and once a job was complete and she was paid she’d put the money in one of her envelopes and drop it in the nearest mailbox preventing her from being a theft or extortion target.

BTW According to the judge she put at least one kid and maybe two thru college.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

That's what I wonder, too- the brothels in Nevada seem to be very tightly regulated, but even if every state legalized brothels, there would still be abuse on the streets. I think the US is very divided on what the real "problem" of prostitution is- is it the immorality of sex for money or is it violence against women? I mean, I know what I think the problem is, but as you point out, the way prostitutes are treated by law enforcement and how they are stigmatized in the community speaks to others having more issues with sex than they do with violence.

Al Jazeera America (look! Dell's head just exploded! Hi, Dell. Teasing you. ) has a thoughtful opinion piece, written after Canada's Supreme Court struck down the laws against prostitution, stating the laws violated women's right to safety:
http://america.aljazeera.com/opinion...utionlaws.html

right, if so many think it's no big deal and should be legal, why are the women providing this 'service' so stigmatized? i don't think even if it were legal all over that the stigma would go away. this country still has too many hang ups about sex. hell, people still talk about the evils of birth control...and then there was the article i just saw about this country having 400k rape test kits that haven't even been tested.
makes it all the more 'funny' to me to know that once upon a time, brothels were typically church owned and operated.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Danzig

right, if so many think it's no big deal and should be legal, why are the women providing this 'service' so stigmatized?.

I think your perception of 'so many' may be a bit off. Don't know of many wives and girlfriends that fall into that category.

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think even if it were legal all over that the stigma would go away. this country still has too many hang ups about sex.

You're right if these husbands/boyfriends want to go out and get some strange, so be it.

BTW Not so long ago when I was a HS freshman 'sex' was feeling some boobies. Today my nephew tells me a BJ falls short of the definition. Thank you Bill Clinton in part. I think your perception of 'too many hang ups' may also be off.

Originally Posted by Danzig

makes it all the more 'funny' to me to know that once upon a time, brothels were typically church owned and operated.

Always nice to fall back on the middle ages to make a point.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I think you're perception of 'so many' may be a bit off. Don't know of many wives and girlfriends that fall into that category.

Eh, I'm a wife and it'll reduce violence against women, legalize it.

Hell, when he had his bachelor's party in Atlantic City, my only request was that they all please tip the strippers well because those women work hard and I didn't want any of them to think I was marrying a cheapskate.

You're right if these husbands/boyfriends want to go out and get some strange, so be it.

Husbands and boyfriends who want to cheat are generally pretty good about getting it for free, if my (former) friend who spent five years dating a married man is any indication. I met the guy. He was no catch.

There are a lot of guys out there who, for whatever reason, are not able to get any. It is, perhaps, not a bad thing for them to have a legal way to get laid without having to date someone. Seeing as how the Nevada brothels require condoms they might be somewhat limited in freak, but I guess everything's a trade-off.

The problem, as the op-ed points out is that prostitution is one thing and coercion is another and the line between them can be difficult to determine. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that going after pimps more aggressively than prostitutes would help.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The problem, as the op-ed points out is that prostitution is one thing and coercion is another and the line between them can be difficult to determine. I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. I agree with you that going after pimps more aggressively than prostitutes would help.

As is the case with surrogacy, especially when completed in foreign countries.

Imagine not only being 'coerced' into sex but being 'coerced' in having a child that will be removed voluntarily or not.

Hence this thread.

We have a whole group of wealthy Americans, mainly white who for some reason decide to use a foreign womb to 'have'/'buy' a baby. Ignoring the 'victim' should not be a reason for as God said "society's perceived benefit."

You want to serve as a surrogate for medical expenses as an 'angel' so be it. For profit you're selling a baby, middle-man, pimp or not.