• 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”?