Posted on 08/03/2023 11:23:34 AM PDT by DallasBiff
Gestational surrogacy is when a person carries and gives birth to a baby for another person or couple. It’s usually done through IVF (in vitro fertilization). The person who carries the pregnancy has no genetic relation to the baby.
(Excerpt) Read more at my.clevelandclinic.org ...
Celebrities love this so they don’t actually have to go through child birth or interrupt their schedule for kids. Even after the birth they pay someone else to take of it.
Couples who greatly desire their own child but can’t have it the normal way appreciate this, too.
I know a woman who carried 3 surrogate babies to pay her and her husbands student loans.
There are legit reasons for this. There are stupid reason for this.
It’s like everything else in the world.
IVF involves fertilizing a bunch of eggs to increase the chance that at least one embryo will be viable. The rest are discarded like trash or condemned to be frozen and preserved as a “Snowflake Baby” until they, also, are discarded like trash. It is just another form of abortion/infanticide. All this because some people (including homosexuals) feel they have a “right” to a baby, even if they can’t conceive one themselves.
Some people can conceive a child, but can’t carry one - they just lose them anyway. I think things even out in the end. I believe that intention carries some weight.
One of the greatest gifts you can give is the gift of life.
My sis’s widow was a surrogate for two gay men. And other things.
When it comes to human life (in this case innocent human unborn babies), I don't see how intention carries any weight when it comes to deciding whether they should live or die-- especially if one is responsible for creating them so that one should be selected and the rest should die. Just because one might argue that it is a good to bring one baby into the world, it doesn't negate the evil that is done when several other innocent human lives are destroyed as part of the process.
That’s....an interesting sentence to parse...
Well, not everyone who wants a child follows your particular religion or philosophy regarding embryonic life.
Unfortunately, that is true. But the scientific fact is that human life begins at conception. Everything that goes into making up what is a human being is present at that time and is allowed to develop normally will eventually become a human embryo, then a human fetus, then human baby, then a human child, and so on.
This has been known by scientists for a long time, but has been denied and ignored by vested interests like the abortion industry and their allies. If one merely follows the science, one does not have to adopt my religious or philosophical position. He simply needs to follow the facts where they lead him.
When does human consciousness begin? When do humans take on a ‘soul’?
The first is a matter of speculation - we don’t even know what consciousness really is or where it comes from. And the ‘soul’ itself is a religious belief - science won’t pronounce upon it.
Science cannot answer metaphysical questions, just as religion cannot answer questions proper to science (religion can, however, utilize scientific facts to clarify it's beliefs about various things. All truth is God's truth and scientific and religious truths cannot contradict each other).
While the time of ensoulment has been debated for centuries (my Church teaches it occurs at conception), even if we are reduced to admitting we don't know, it is always better to err in favor of it being a human being. In the specific case that we are discussing, if you have good reason to believe something is a human life, but are not sure, it’s better to treat it as if were a human life.
If one sees a bag lying in the road that is such a size and shape that it could be either a baby inside or a bunch of old clothes, it’s better not to run over it than to run over it.
I understand and pretty much agree with you; but we live in a country where laws and regulations are not really guided by any specific religious belief or specific moral system. They’re the product of a consensus morality and science.
Maybe someday we’ll get where you want us to be. (I’m personally hoping that science someday moves toward encompassing metaphysical issues. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime.)
That is true, but we can and have joined with like-minded people on particular moral issues to break through the common consensus when it is immoral and make a change. We have seen this happen in a number of areas in our history including slavery and most recently abortion. They kept telling us that it was the settled law of the land and that the majority of Americans supported abortion but since Roe was overturned, we've found out that is not really the case. You can also say much the same about human child sex trafficking. Everyone knows it was happening, but it has take a series of recent events and the activism of a few to bring it more to the fore than it has been.
So, do you believe that gestational surrogacy should be illegal?
It seems to me that this is a lot more complicated than slavery and abortion.
I believe IVF is immoral for the reasons I stated above, but I don't think it will be illegal anytime soon because, just like in the case of abortion, people are ignorant about what it does, much as people are either ignorant or in denial about the fact that innocent human beings are killed in the process. And also much like abortion, minds won't change until people are able to look at the facts. It's not complicated in comparison to slavery as it is clearly wrong for one human being to "own" another. It is not complicated in regards to abortion in that in both processes, innocent human beings are murdered. If the unborn are human beings (as the most current science clearly says they are), how is it OK to kill them?
I asked if you thought it SHOULD be made illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.