Right. A lot of the same reasons. I'm not sure how you read that and interpreted it as "Surrogacy is buying sex." Then re-read it *again* as you went to quote it, didn't stop to think "Hmm, maybe I misunderstood what was written, and should actually parse the words in that sentence before I embarrass myself," and hit reply.
You made the absurd claim that surrogacy is buying sex, despite the fact that when if they are using IVF the couple is not having sex with the surrogate. The fertilized embryo is implanted with surgery.
Are you ****ing incapable of reading a simple sentence? At no point did I make that claim. I'm sorry if you scored badly on the SAT Verbal section, but you're older than me so it's long past time you got over that particular insecurity.
I said that a lot of my squeamishness about legalizing surrogacy-for-hire are the same objections that I have to legalizing sex-for-hire. And then I listed my specific objections and noted the need to weigh these costs of surrogacy against the societal benefits of more babies and more parents having the desired number of children.
This seems like a non-sequitur. The purpose of the infertility requirement is to not pay for an expensive treatment for a couple who would otherwise be quite capable of conceiving a child together the "natural" way. The gay couple clearly is infertile by that definition.
That is pretty close to how I would define infertile, at least for all practical/legal purposes.
Surrogacy has nothing to do with sex for hire. Why are you trying to equate the two unrelated ideas?
You clearly can't understand what I wrote even when it has been explained to you multiple times, so just take the L and go away. Why would you think I would have any interest in arguing with you about a view that I don't actually hold? If you want to talk about the view on surrogacy that I *did* put forth and *do* hold, then by all means, make your case. But I have no interest in these stupid straw men. What's even the point of them? Why are you even trying to argue a point when no one is taking the opposite side?
You have no clue what you are talking about. The facts of the matter are not strawmen. Sex has nothing to do with surrogacy and surrogacy is legal.
Ok. Wonderful. I don't know who you are trying to convince of this obvious point, but sure.
Yes, surrogacy-for-hire is legal in a handful of US states and a few Soviet bloc countries, as my post noted. Most everywhere else, it's either banned or there just aren't any laws/institutions on the books for handling it.
When the fertility rate is hovering at 1.7 (well below the replacement rate), policies that increase that seem well worth the cost and in the best interests of society. Including paying for IVF.
I'm talking more about public policy. If it's a private insurer, obviously they don't care about that. What I'm saying is that the public should cover the cost of IVF, and this will obviously pay for itself many times over. Let's make it as easy as possible for would-be parents to have kids.
Your worlds, not mine. What I said is what I meant.
You rarely leave us wondering.
Is there any topic on which you folks won’t race bait?
By the terms of an insurance contract.
I know you guys go harder for those that are on to you, show you for what you are and tell it like it is. I take it as a compliment.
Race seems to play a large role in your opinions, as a white nationaist.
You could have a role, if that role wasn't to excuse the bad choices that led to the poverty, or the children, or the lack of education that all continue the poverty throughout generations.
You cannot take children away because their parents are poor. The social services network has failed but it isn't the parent's fault and it is extremely traumatic to remove the children. The foster network is a disaster of abuse and exploitation. .