Quote:
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.
Quote:
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)?