• Llituro [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Wait, so she didn't even bother carrying the kid herself? Those kids are not gonna come out human, not when they're a psychopath deranged person's doll.

    • MendingBenjamin [they/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      For all we know she has some fertility issues, maybe related to the birth of their other kid(s?). Surrogacy is a valid way to have a child, even if this particular instance seems weird

        • dallasw
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

          • MendingBenjamin [they/them]
            ·
            3 years ago

            This. It’s literally state-sanctioned kidnapping. And sometimes it’s a net good. But it’s never nonviolent and never not traumatic. The state’s doing it either way, so I still think it’s a good thing to open a foster home if someone has the capacity, but still. It props up and justifies the fact that families need to live in poverty and without mental health services in the first place.

        • mark213686123 [none/use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          I agree with the British law on it in that paying any money other than the basic costs for it should be illegal. so it''s only allowed as a favour

        • MendingBenjamin [they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          you can just adopt

          You can say that about every single baby born. And “just” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there

          womb rental for gene freaks

          This is what I’m talking about. I have a coworker who had her sister surrogate for her and just paid her medical costs. Is that “womb rental”? Is she a “gene freak”?

    • Animasta [any]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Honestly, if you are rich as hell and don't have hang-up about the ethics of it surrogacy seems like an obvious decision.