Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[Hobbeebia]

With surrogacy women become objects enlisted in auction catalogues of brokers, catalogues on which customers can choose according to the physical and mental features of the women (including the sexual tastes and even the level of education) then such customers can set contracts that should make everybody literally cringe for the absolute loss of dignity that such contracts underlies.

Funny part is this sounds exactly like the catalogs for women in sperm banks.

I'm a donor and I know this is almost a word for word copy of the things that we donors have questions that have to be answered. Funny we dont hear a great deal about men complaining about this kind of thing...

[Ethel mermania]

Really the rules changed on getting an STD? Why am I always the last to know??

On a more serious side. Then where are the Telegraph and independent getting their information from? They both put it as a future change.

For a sweater for the devil, what color should I get?

Not sure. The problem is, we're trusting the independent, which sources itself as a valid source by hyperlinking to other articles it's posted. If it is true, what the move is actually establishing is this:

Under the new terms, heterosexual single men and women, and gay men and women who want to have children would be given the same priority as couples seeking IVF because of medical fertility problems.

I.E. these groups will have an equal priority to straight couples of receiving a sperm donation, or surrogacy chance. Since this stuff runs off of a database and catalogue for matching, and obviously, there's only so much sperm stored, and a woman can only have so many children within a yearly period.

If it's correct, and that is a big if I agree, I would be against it.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Can somebody explain in english what she's on about?

[Lady Scylla]

Not sure. The problem is, we're trusting the independent, which sources itself as a valid source by hyperlinking to other articles it's posted. If it is true, what the move is actually establishing is this:



I.E. these groups will have an equal priority to straight couples of receiving a sperm donation, or surrogacy chance. Since this stuff runs off of a database and catalogue for matching, and obviously, there's only so much sperm stored, and a woman can only have so many children within a yearly period.

If it's correct, and that is a big if I agree, I would be against it.

I'm a bit surprised. Why?

[Lady Scylla]

Can somebody explain in english what she's on about?

We don't have enough alcohol, or the crayons.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Can somebody explain in english what she's on about?

We don't have enough alcohol, or the crayons.

Fair enough. By the title I got the idea of it being about sex, but I tried reading the op and got lost

[Sareva]

We don't have enough alcohol, or the crayons.

Fair enough. By the title I got the idea of it being about sex, but I tried reading the op and got lost

I tried and I gave up quite quickly. Turns out running in circles leads to bullshit? Who would have thunk?

[Ethel mermania]

If it's correct, and that is a big if I agree, I would be against it.

I'm a bit surprised. Why?

I don't think the state should be encouraging single people to have babies. I have no issue with surrogacy for married couples of any variety.

[Ethel mermania]

We don't have enough alcohol, or the crayons.

Fair enough. By the title I got the idea of it being about sex, but I tried reading the op and got lost

The other news articles in the OP are a bit easier to make sense of. THE first one the writer should have their fingers broken so they can never inflict that gobbledygook on anyone ever agsin.

[Lady Scylla]

I'm a bit surprised. Why?

I don't think the state should be encouraging single people to have babies. I have no issue with surrogacy for married couples of any variety.

How is this having the state 'encourage it', and what's wrong with single people having children? what about unmarried couples?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Fair enough. By the title I got the idea of it being about sex, but I tried reading the op and got lost

The other news articles in the OP are a bit easier to make sense of. THE first one the writer should have their fingers broken so they can never inflict that gobbledygook on anyone ever agsin.

Oh thanks that actually helped a lot. So let me just check this is right before I post my opinion.
The WHO is saying that everybody has the right to have kids regardless of marital status, and Madame Chess is upset about men now being allowed to have surrogate children with women?

[Galloism]

The other news articles in the OP are a bit easier to make sense of. THE first one the writer should have their fingers broken so they can never inflict that gobbledygook on anyone ever agsin.

Oh thanks that actually helped a lot. So let me just check this is right before I post my opinion.
The WHO is saying that everybody has the right to have kids regardless of marital status, and Madame Chess is upset about men now being allowed to have surrogate children with women?

Essentially yes, because women are basically children who can't make their own choices, and we don't let children be surrogates.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Oh thanks that actually helped a lot. So let me just check this is right before I post my opinion.
The WHO is saying that everybody has the right to have kids regardless of marital status, and Madame Chess is upset about men now being allowed to have surrogate children with women?

Essentially yes, because women are basically children who can't make their own choices, and we don't let children be surrogates.

Ok. Then yes, Chess is pulling things from her ass again. If a man goes up to woman and signs an agreement for her to be artificially inseminated and carry the child with said child being given to the father after birth, there is no problem.

[Galloism]

Essentially yes, because women are basically children who can't make their own choices, and we don't let children be surrogates.

Ok. Then yes, Chess is pulling things from her ass again. If a man goes up to woman and signs an agreement for her to be artificially inseminated and carry the child with said child being given to the father after birth, there is no problem.

Body exploiter.

[Settrah]

> Rape culture is a myth
> Radfems start to realise rape culture is a myth
> Need to find new fuel from somewhere, in order to support the belief of rape culture
> Notices society deems men infertile, if their partner cannot provide their child
> Notices the possibility of someone else outside their relationship, a third party providing the man with the child he wants, if the couple and womb provider agrees
> Still fails to understand that rape is still illegal
> BUT HOW DARE MEN WANT CHILDREN
> MEN ARE RAPISTS

Did I miss anything?

EDIT: Oh wait, it's a Chess Mistress thread. No this is pretty self explanatory.

[Ethel mermania]

I don't think the state should be encouraging single people to have babies. I have no issue with surrogacy for married couples of any variety.

How is this having the state 'encourage it', and what's wrong with single people having children? what about unmarried couples?

They can do, and pay for it, on their own. I don't want the state paying for the surrogacy. Children are better off with two parents.
G
Based on the other articles, the WHO is making social policy, which is way beyond their perview.

So while I have no issue with paid surrogacy, which is cm's issue. I don't think single people who are deemed infertile by the WHO's "new" definition, (which seems to include "not able to get laid"). should get state help to have kids.

[Central Woop Woop]

> Rape culture is a myth
> Radfems start to realise rape culture is a myth
> Need to find new fuel from somewhere, in order to support the belief of rape culture
> Still fails to understand that rape is still illegal
> HOW DARE MEN WANT CHILDREN

Did I miss anything?

The bit where single, disgruntled men who won't ever find a woman or have kids because the feminist movement has thrown society off the rails end up going crazy, shooting up somewhere and then get 100% themselves blamed as the cause of the issue.

[Ethel mermania]

The other news articles in the OP are a bit easier to make sense of. THE first one the writer should have their fingers broken so they can never inflict that gobbledygook on anyone ever agsin.

Oh thanks that actually helped a lot. So let me just check this is right before I post my opinion.
The WHO is saying that everybody has the right to have kids regardless of marital status, and Madame Chess is upset about men now being allowed to have surrogate children with women?

Yes and The WHO is saying that as a right it should be state supported.

[Galloism]

Oh thanks that actually helped a lot. So let me just check this is right before I post my opinion.
The WHO is saying that everybody has the right to have kids regardless of marital status, and Madame Chess is upset about men now being allowed to have surrogate children with women?

Yes and The WHO is saying that as a right it should be state supported.

Define 'supported'.

[Ethel mermania]

Yes and The WHO is saying that as a right it should be state supported.

Define 'supported'.

Paid for. Ie the state should find and pay for surrogates for single men and women.

I think if they can pay for it themselves it should be allowed because "muh freedom".

[Gauthier]

tl;dr "If you and your SO want a child and either one have problems, adopt or suck it. We don't need mongrels tainting the gene pool!"

[Fartsniffage]

> Rape culture is a myth
> Radfems start to realise rape culture is a myth
> Need to find new fuel from somewhere, in order to support the belief of rape culture
> Still fails to understand that rape is still illegal
> HOW DARE MEN WANT CHILDREN

Did I miss anything?

The bit where single, disgruntled men who won't ever find a woman or have kids because the feminist movement has thrown society off the rails end up going crazy, shooting up somewhere and then get 100% themselves blamed as the cause of the issue.

What?

[Lady Scylla]

How is this having the state 'encourage it', and what's wrong with single people having children? what about unmarried couples?

They can do, and pay for it, on their own. I don't want the state paying for the surrogacy. Children are better off with two parents.
G
Based on the other articles, the WHO is making social policy, which is way beyond their perview.

So while I have no issue with paid surrogacy, which is cm's issue. I don't think single people who are deemed infertile by the WHO's "new" definition, (which seems to include "not able to get laid"). should get state help to have kids.

I don't believe that's at all what they're going for.

[Ethel mermania]

They can do, and pay for it, on their own. I don't want the state paying for the surrogacy. Children are better off with two parents.
G
Based on the other articles, the WHO is making social policy, which is way beyond their perview.

So while I have no issue with paid surrogacy, which is cm's issue. I don't think single people who are deemed infertile by the WHO's "new" definition, (which seems to include "not able to get laid"). should get state help to have kids.

I don't believe that's at all what they're going for.

Honestly, based on the sources, I have no idea what they ar3 going for.

[Gauthier]

I don't believe that's at all what they're going for.

Honestly, based on the sources, I have no idea what they ar3 going for.

Radfems equating surrogacy with prostitution.