The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Olerand]

Clearly, we have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly it is that you need here. I don't see this as buying services, you don't need a woman, any woman, for this. You need a womb. If a womb can exist separate from a woman, you could, and would, very well use that. The woman's services are irrelevant, besides producing that which you are then purchasing.

Yes, you do need a women, considering they're the only things that can currently incubate human embryos into children. You're compensating someone for that service which they are providing.

The womb is what's vital to this. It just so happens only living women have fertile wombs. What you need is a womb. If a lab somewhere invented a womb separate from a woman, surrogacy itself would be made redundant, as all those people buying poor women's wombs would grow their child in that artificial womb.

[Galloism]

Yes, you do need a women, considering they're the only things that can currently incubate human embryos into children. You're compensating someone for that service which they are providing.

The womb is what's vital to this. It just so happens only living women have fertile wombs. What you need is a womb. If a lab somewhere invented a womb separate from a woman, surrogacy itself would be made redundant, as all those people buying poor women's wombs would grow their child in that artificial womb.

Let me know when you ban sperm banks and ferility doctors.

[New haven america]

Yes, you do need a women, considering they're the only things that can currently incubate human embryos into children. You're compensating someone for that service which they are providing.

The womb is what's vital to this. It just so happens only living women have fertile wombs. What you need is a womb. If a lab somewhere invented a womb separate from a woman, surrogacy itself would be made redundant, as all those people buying poor women's wombs would grow their child in that artificial womb.

A. Sure, that could help, but that would take years of testing.
2. Why do you keep assuming that most surrogates are poor? Because they're not. Most surrogates need to meet health standards that most poor individuals can't meet (Actually, IIRC, middle class women are the most common surrogates).

[Olerand]

1- The services are irrelevant besides the products you are purchasing, which are the womb and the baby. You don't need services, you need produce. A womb to produce a baby.
2- No, you're buying their womb
3- Uh... Not what I argued. I argued that you cannot buy another human being's body-parts and its human produce, such as their womb. No one can buy your hands. They can buy what your hands make which are not human. This is not what I argued at all. I don't understand how arguing that you cannot buy organs is becoming such a convoluted conversation.


What are you talking about? Try what again? The sperm is not human, nor an organ. You may purchase it. It may be used to then produce a human being in a womb not being financially rewarded for making that human being. What you purchase then is the sperm (not human or an organ), and the services of the doctor (who injects it into you). No organs nor humans are being bought. Is this a difficult concept to understand?

Yes, because it is a fundamentally inconsistent concept.

A sperm is produced by an organ (the testes) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It requires the use of both hands and an organ that must work to be purchased. It will not be purchased without peak functioning testes and adequately functioning hands.

A fetus is produced by an organ (the womb) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It will not be purchased without an adequately functioning womb, and hands are helpful too.

A fetus is produced by an organ (doctor's hands/brain) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It will not be purchased without adequately functioning brains or hands.

The middle one is organ trafficking but the others aren't. For some reason.

And? The involvement of human organs in its making is not relevant. They are not being purchased. No one owns the sperm donor's hands or testes. The sperm itself, is not human.

A zygote is neither an organ nor a human. Until a certain level of gestation, upon which it would be in its (non-financially compensated) mother's womb. No one owns the doctor's hands, eyes, or brain. No one owns the mother's womb. No one owns the fetus.

Zygotes are inserted into a mother's uterus, certainly not a fetus, which would be... A true feat.

[Olerand]

The womb is what's vital to this. It just so happens only living women have fertile wombs. What you need is a womb. If a lab somewhere invented a womb separate from a woman, surrogacy itself would be made redundant, as all those people buying poor women's wombs would grow their child in that artificial womb.

Let me know when you ban sperm banks and ferility doctors.

Your logic still doesn't make sense, so I don't see why they should be banned.

The womb is what's vital to this. It just so happens only living women have fertile wombs. What you need is a womb. If a lab somewhere invented a womb separate from a woman, surrogacy itself would be made redundant, as all those people buying poor women's wombs would grow their child in that artificial womb.

A. Sure, that could help, but that would take years of testing.
2. Why do you keep assuming that most surrogates are poor? Because they're not. Most surrogates need to meet health standards that most poor individuals can't meet (Actually, IIRC, middle class women are the most common surrogates).

Of course it would, but the mere example proves that what you need is a womb. Not a woman's services, beyond making the product.

Again, because I am explaining it from the experiences I know. I am not American (though knowing America, I highly doubt this exploitative practice is really not happening as I imagine it is) and cannot describe surrogacy in America. I am explaining it how we experience and see it, which is the purchase of a poor Indian or Eastern European woman's womb.

[Galloism]

Yes, because it is a fundamentally inconsistent concept.

A sperm is produced by an organ (the testes) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It requires the use of both hands and an organ that must work to be purchased. It will not be purchased without peak functioning testes and adequately functioning hands.

A fetus is produced by an organ (the womb) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It will not be purchased without an adequately functioning womb, and hands are helpful too.

A fetus is produced by an organ (doctor's hands/brain) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It will not be purchased without adequately functioning brains or hands.

The middle one is organ trafficking but the others aren't. For some reason.

And? The involvement of human organs in its making is not relevant. They are not being purchased. No one owns the sperm donor's hands or testes. The sperm itself, is not human.

No biologist ever will tell you human sperm is not human.

A zygote is neither an organ nor a human. Until a certain level of gestation, upon which it would be in its (non-financially compensated) mother's womb. No one owns the doctor's hands, eyes, or brain. No one owns the mother's womb. No one owns the fetus..

Which is why surrogacy is not organ trafficking. No one owns the surrogate's womb. She's merely using it to produce a child.

She's using it the same way the sperm donor used his testes for months or the fertility doctor used her hands/brain for months, as without them using their own organs for this purpose, no person would ever have been produced.

So should we ban all compensation in this field for labor (which is use of organs), none, or do you want to maintain a fundamentally ethically inconsistent position?

[Olerand]

And? The involvement of human organs in its making is not relevant. They are not being purchased. No one owns the sperm donor's hands or testes. The sperm itself, is not human.

No biologist ever will tell you human sperm is not human.

A zygote is neither an organ nor a human. Until a certain level of gestation, upon which it would be in its (non-financially compensated) mother's womb. No one owns the doctor's hands, eyes, or brain. No one owns the mother's womb. No one owns the fetus..

Which is why surrogacy is not organ trafficking. No one owns the surrogate's womb. She's merely using it to produce a child.

She's using it the same way the sperm donor used his testes for months or the fertility doctor used her hands/brain for months, as without them using their own organs for this purpose, no person would ever have been produced.

So should we ban all compensation in this field for labor (which is use of organs), none, or do you want to maintain a fundamentally ethically inconsistent position?

I don't care about biologists. I am not a biologist, nor am I talking biology. I am explaining a worldview, a philosophy, an ethical standard, and the law reflecting them.
According to the law, and to the pleasure of many men I am sure, a sperm is not a human being, and wiping it away is not akin to homicide.

You do own it, you're "renting it". For the nine months you are paying for her womb, you have bought it.

She is not, because the testes are not being purchased at all, their produce is. They make sperm and ejaculate, what is being purchased is the ejaculate. The womb is purchased in surrogacy, however, as it is needed to make and hold the produce for nine months, a produce which is also human. As for the example with the brain, I still don't get it. I never argued that the mere use of a human organ for making a non-human produce or service is unethical or immoral. I argue that the purchase of a human organ is unethical and immoral. No one owns the doctor's brain, no one owns the donor's testes. The woman's womb is "owned" for nine months by the people paying her for her human produce.

Again, I don't see. Keep trying.

[Galloism]

I don't care about biologists. I am not a biologist, nor am I talking biology. I am explaining a worldview, a philosophy, an ethical standard, and the law reflecting them.
According to the law, and to the pleasure of many men I am sure, a sperm is not a human being, and wiping it away is not akin to homicide.

"Being human" and "being a human being" are different, obviously.

You do own it, you're "renting it". For the nine months you are paying for her womb, you have bought it.

In that case, when you have a man masturbate for you, you have rented his testes for 3 months (or so), and ergo have bought it.

So ban sperm banks.

She is not, because the testes are not being purchased at all, their produce is.

The womb is not being purchased at all. Its produce is. The purchasers don't keep the womb after purchasing (or, if they do, that should probably be illegal, IMO).

They make sperm and ejaculate, what is being purchased is the ejaculate.

Which is created via months of work. About 2 1/2 to 3 months to be exact.

What is being 'purchased' is the baby. Not the gestation.

The womb is purchased in gestation, however, as it is needed to make and hold the produce for nine months, a produce which is also human.

The testes are purchased in gestation however, as it is needed to make and hold the produce for 2 1/2 to 3 months, a produce which is also human.

As for the example with the brain, I still don't get it. I never argued that the mere use of a human organ for making a non-human produce or service is unethical or immoral. I argue that the purchase of a human organ is unethical and immoral. No one owns the doctor's brain, no one owns the donor's testes. The woman's womb is "owned" for nine months by the people paying her for her human produce.

This is the point: the womb is only OWNED by the people PAYING if the testes are also OWNED by the people PAYING. THe womb is only OWNED by the people PAYING if the brain is OWNED by the people PAYING.

Which either means LABOR IS SLAVERY, or your argument is bunk.

I know which I think it is.

[Olerand]

I don't care about biologists. I am not a biologist, nor am I talking biology. I am explaining a worldview, a philosophy, an ethical standard, and the law reflecting them.
According to the law, and to the pleasure of many men I am sure, a sperm is not a human being, and wiping it away is not akin to homicide.

"Being human" and "being a human being" are different, obviously.

You do own it, you're "renting it". For the nine months you are paying for her womb, you have bought it.

In that case, when you have a man masturbate for you, you have rented his testes for 3 months (or so), and ergo have bought it.

So ban sperm banks.

She is not, because the testes are not being purchased at all, their produce is.

The womb is not being purchased at all. Its produce is. The purchasers don't keep the womb after purchasing (or, if they do, that should probably be illegal, IMO).

They make sperm and ejaculate, what is being purchased is the ejaculate.

Which is created via months of work. About 2 1/2 to 3 months to be exact.

What is being 'purchased' is the baby. Not the gestation.

The womb is purchased in gestation, however, as it is needed to make and hold the produce for nine months, a produce which is also human.

The testes are purchased in gestation however, as it is needed to make and hold the produce for 2 1/2 to 3 months, a produce which is also human.

As for the example with the brain, I still don't get it. I never argued that the mere use of a human organ for making a non-human produce or service is unethical or immoral. I argue that the purchase of a human organ is unethical and immoral. No one owns the doctor's brain, no one owns the donor's testes. The woman's womb is "owned" for nine months by the people paying her for her human produce.

This is the point: the womb is only OWNED by the people PAYING if the testes are also OWNED by the people PAYING. THe womb is only OWNED by the people PAYING if the brain is OWNED by the people PAYING.

Which either means LABOR IS SLAVERY, or your argument is bunk.

I know which I think it is.

Perhaps in the sciences. In this non-scientific discussion, they are not.

Why? Will their testes not produce sperm otherwise? Are they incapable of producing sperm without this? Do they not produce sperm when not in a sperm bank being financially rewarded? The testes are not purchased at all, they make sperm, that is what they do, all the time, regardless of financial compensation. What is purchased is the sperm. A man's sperm is what is needed, his non-human produce.
A woman's womb does not simply make babies. It is being purchased to make a baby. A baby, a human, is desired, and what is being purchased to be able to make and purchase that human, is a human organ.

They do. For the nine months they are paying for it, they have "purchased" it.

What is being purchased in a man's case is the semen. In a woman's case, it is her womb to make the baby, and then the baby. Both purchases in the woman's case are unethical.

No, they are not. You can come any day to the sperm bank and cum. That's it. Your testes are never purchased, your cum is. Your testes are there, and will do this job anyway. What is needed is the non-human produce. This is specifically why surrogacy financially compensates so much more than selling sperm.

No, they are not. The testes make sperm. Period. All the time, in a healthy post-pubescent male. What is needed is the non-human sperm. Women's wombs don't just make babies. You are purchasing the womb to put your baby into it, and then taking the baby. The testes are never purchased, the sperm is. The womb is purchased, for nine months while the child gestates in there.

I don't particularly care, to be exactly precise, what you think. I am simply explaining what the worldview behind the bans is.

[Galloism]

Perhaps in the sciences. In this non-scientific discussion, they are not.

Trying to separate science from biology is akin to trying to separate science from physics.

Why? Will their testes not produce sperm otherwise? Are they incapable of producing sperm without this? Do they not produce sperm when not in a sperm bank being financially rewarded? The testes are not purchased at all, they make sperm, that is what they do, all the time, regardless of financial compensation. What is purchased is the sperm. A man's sperm is what is needed, his non-human produce.
A woman's womb does not simply make babies. It is being purchased to make a baby. A baby, a human, is desired, and what is being purchased to be able to make and purchase that human, is a human organ.

I'm not sure how that's a relevant difference. A surrogate very well can produce a baby without being a surrogate. Easily, in fact.

They do. For the nine months they are paying for it, they have "purchased" it.

Then testes are purchased by sperm banks.

What is being purchased in a man's case is the semen. In a woman's case, it is her womb to make the baby, and then the baby. Both purchases in the woman's case are unethical.

No, the womb is not being purchased. The services of the womb are being purchased. In the same way that sperm is not being purchased, the services of the testes are being purchased. In the same way that a fertilized egg is not being purchased, the services of the doctor performing the in vitro fertilization are being purchased.

No, they are not. You can come any day to the sperm bank and cum. That's it. Your testes are never purchased, your cum is. Your testes are there, and will do this job anyway. What is needed is the non-human produce. This is specifically why surrogacy financially compensates so much more than selling sperm.

It involves more labor, basically. The same reason that working on an oil rig compensates a lot more than working at a grocery store.

No, they are not. The testes make sperm. Period. All the time, in a healthy post-pubescent male. What is needed is the non-human sperm. Women's wombs don't just make babies. You are purchasing the womb to put your baby into it, and then taking the baby.

No, you're purchasing the services OF the womb, in the same way that sperm banks purchase the services OF the testes.

It's really no different.

The testes are never purchased, the sperm is. The womb is purchased, for nine months while the child gestates in there.

I don't particularly care, to be exactly precise, what you think. I am simply explaining what the worldview behind the bans is.

This worldview is morally and ethically bankrupt, and sexist to boot.

Stop defending sexist worldviews and we'll stop calling you out on defending sexist worldviews.

[Olerand]

Perhaps in the sciences. In this non-scientific discussion, they are not.

Trying to separate science from biology is akin to trying to separate science from physics.

Why? Will their testes not produce sperm otherwise? Are they incapable of producing sperm without this? Do they not produce sperm when not in a sperm bank being financially rewarded? The testes are not purchased at all, they make sperm, that is what they do, all the time, regardless of financial compensation. What is purchased is the sperm. A man's sperm is what is needed, his non-human produce.
A woman's womb does not simply make babies. It is being purchased to make a baby. A baby, a human, is desired, and what is being purchased to be able to make and purchase that human, is a human organ.

I'm not sure how that's a relevant difference. A surrogate very well can produce a baby without being a surrogate. Easily, in fact.

They do. For the nine months they are paying for it, they have "purchased" it.

Then testes are purchased by sperm banks.

What is being purchased in a man's case is the semen. In a woman's case, it is her womb to make the baby, and then the baby. Both purchases in the woman's case are unethical.

No, the womb is not being purchased. The services of the womb are being purchased. In the same way that sperm is not being purchased, the services of the testes are being purchased. In the same way that a fertilized egg is not being purchased, the services of the doctor performing the in vitro fertilization are being purchased.

No, they are not. You can come any day to the sperm bank and cum. That's it. Your testes are never purchased, your cum is. Your testes are there, and will do this job anyway. What is needed is the non-human produce. This is specifically why surrogacy financially compensates so much more than selling sperm.

It involves more labor, basically. The same reason that working on an oil rig compensates a lot more than working at a grocery store.

No, they are not. The testes make sperm. Period. All the time, in a healthy post-pubescent male. What is needed is the non-human sperm. Women's wombs don't just make babies. You are purchasing the womb to put your baby into it, and then taking the baby.

No, you're purchasing the services OF the womb, in the same way that sperm banks purchase the services OF the testes.

It's really no different.

The testes are never purchased, the sperm is. The womb is purchased, for nine months while the child gestates in there.

I don't particularly care, to be exactly precise, what you think. I am simply explaining what the worldview behind the bans is.

This worldview is morally and ethically bankrupt, and sexist to boot.

Uh... What? This is not a biological, or scientific discussion. At best, it is philosophical. Not sure what science has to do with it, considering as "science's definition" of sperm is not the philosophical or legal one, which is what is being discussed here.

Sure, and her womb would not be purchased, nor would the baby. But in surrogacy, they both are. When a man produces sperm and does not sell them, they are also never purchased. When he sells them, they, and not his testes, are purchased.

Sperm banks give you a payment when you give them your semen, what is being purchased is your semen. They do not pay you when are home and your testes are producing the semen. Surrogates get paid either on a regular basis, or when the baby is delivered, and in both cases what is being purchased is a human organ and a human being.

The womb is being purchased. A womb cannot produce "services". It is a product, it makes things, as products do. The woman has services that can be purchased, the womb is an object that is a part of that woman's physical existence. An ATM offers no services, it is an ATM, it is a product. It is not compensated for its services, it is a product.

It involves the purchasing of your womb for nine months.

A womb has no services to offer. You cannot financially compensate or reward a womb. A womb is an object, inseparable from the human being that it is a part of.

Again, I don't particularly care. I think that believing that you can buy an organ, or a human child, is perfectly immoral and unethical, and in certain cases, can be sexist depending on the power dynamics involved. And yet, despite you believing in those things, I still don't particularly care.

[Galloism]

Uh... What? This is not a biological, or scientific discussion.

Pregnancy is inherently biological.

At best, it is philosophical. Not sure what science has to do with it, considering as "science's definition" of sperm is not the philosophical or legal one, which is what is being discussed here.

Sure, and her womb would not be purchased, nor would the baby. But in surrogacy, they both are.

No, they aren't. The purchasers do not get to keep the womb when finished.

When a man produces sperm and does not sell them, they are also never purchased. When he sells them, they, and not his testes, are purchased.

And when a person who could be a surrigate produces a baby for her own self, that's also never purchased. Ergo, when she "sells" a baby (your view on this is just backwards, but going with it) it, and not her womb, is purchased.

Sperm banks give you a payment when you give them your semen, what is being purchased is your semen. They do not pay you when are home and your testes are producing the semen. Surrogates get paid either on a regular basis, or when the baby is delivered, and in both cases what is being purchased is a human organ and a human being.

No, no human organ is purchased. They don't get to keep the womb afterwards (also, not sure why they'd want it).

The womb is being purchased.

It is not, or they would get to keep it.

A womb cannot produce "services". It is a product.

Then the testes cannot produce "services". It is a product.

The woman has services that can be purchased, the womb is an object that is a part of that woman's physical existence.

The man has services that can be purchased. The testes is an object that is a part of the man's physical existence.

It involves the purchasing of your womb for nine months.

Only if purchasing sperm involves purchasing testes for three months (or so).

A womb has no services to offer. You cannot financially compensate or reward a womb. A womb is an object, inseparable from the human being that it is a part of.

Testes/hands/brains have no services to offer. You cannot financially compensate or reward testes/hands/brains. Testes/hands/brains are objects. Inseparable from the human being that it is a part of.

Again, I don't particularly care. I think that believing that you can buy an organ, or a human child, is perfectly immoral and unethical, and in certain cases, can be sexist depending on the power dynamics involved. And yet, despite you believing in those things, I still don't particularly care.

I believe we should be nonsexist. You disagree.

That means either banning surrogacy AND sperm donation, as both involve producing a human with the use of organs, or neither.

I'd prefer neither, but both is OK too, I guess. The thing I won't let you get away with is your fundamentally sexist and logically inconsistent position.

[Olerand]

Uh... What? This is not a biological, or scientific discussion.

Pregnancy is inherently biological.

At best, it is philosophical. Not sure what science has to do with it, considering as "science's definition" of sperm is not the philosophical or legal one, which is what is being discussed here.

Sure, and her womb would not be purchased, nor would the baby. But in surrogacy, they both are.

No, they aren't. The purchasers do not get to keep the womb when finished.

When a man produces sperm and does not sell them, they are also never purchased. When he sells them, they, and not his testes, are purchased.

And when a person who could be a surrigate produces a baby for her own self, that's also never purchased. Ergo, when she "sells" a baby (your view on this is just backwards, but going with it) it, and not her womb, is purchased.

Sperm banks give you a payment when you give them your semen, what is being purchased is your semen. They do not pay you when are home and your testes are producing the semen. Surrogates get paid either on a regular basis, or when the baby is delivered, and in both cases what is being purchased is a human organ and a human being.

No, no human organ is purchased. They don't get to keep the womb afterwards (also, not sure why they'd want it).

The womb is being purchased.

It is not, or they would get to keep it.

A womb cannot produce "services". It is a product.

Then the testes cannot produce "services". It is a product.

The woman has services that can be purchased, the womb is an object that is a part of that woman's physical existence.

The man has services that can be purchased. The testes is an object that is a part of the man's physical existence.

It involves the purchasing of your womb for nine months.

Only if purchasing sperm involves purchasing testes for three months (or so).

A womb has no services to offer. You cannot financially compensate or reward a womb. A womb is an object, inseparable from the human being that it is a part of.

Testes/hands/brains have no services to offer. You cannot financially compensate or reward testes/hands/brains. Testes/hands/brains are objects. Inseparable from the human being that it is a part of.

Again, I don't particularly care. I think that believing that you can buy an organ, or a human child, is perfectly immoral and unethical, and in certain cases, can be sexist depending on the power dynamics involved. And yet, despite you believing in those things, I still don't particularly care.

I believe we should be nonsexist. You disagree.

That means either banning surrogacy AND sperm donation, as both involve producing a human with the use of organs, or neither.

I'd prefer neither, but both is OK too, I guess. The thing I won't let you get away with is your fundamentally sexist and logically inconsistent position.

Ok? And? How does this, and the scientific definition of human relate to this, when what we are discussing is ethics and law?

They purchase the womb for the nine months it is being used.

Her womb is purchased for nine months, not forever. The baby is indeed purchased, just plain purchased. Both transactions are immoral and unethical.

A womb is purchased for nine months. A human being is purchased afterwards.

For nine months, it is purchased. They are using it as if it is theirs.

Of course they cannot, did I argue otherwise?

Yes? And? I never argued testes' services are purchased, did I? I specifically said their produce is.

No, as the testes make sperm anyway. What is needed is sperm. A womb is needed in this process for nine months to make a baby, which would not simply happen otherwise. As in, wombs, unlike testes and sperm, do not automatically make babies.

Yes? And? Organs are used by people to make goods and services. When did I ever argue that a brain has services to offer? Who are you, exactly, having this discussion with?

Again, you've exposed your views numerous times, and never convinced me. The conclusion of all your posts call me and the bans on surrogacy sexist and illogical, and I remain unconvinced, and I still don't care. So... Do you want another try?

[Galloism]

Pregnancy is inherently biological.



No, they aren't. The purchasers do not get to keep the womb when finished.



And when a person who could be a surrigate produces a baby for her own self, that's also never purchased. Ergo, when she "sells" a baby (your view on this is just backwards, but going with it) it, and not her womb, is purchased.



No, no human organ is purchased. They don't get to keep the womb afterwards (also, not sure why they'd want it).



It is not, or they would get to keep it.



Then the testes cannot produce "services". It is a product.



The man has services that can be purchased. The testes is an object that is a part of the man's physical existence.



Only if purchasing sperm involves purchasing testes for three months (or so).



Testes/hands/brains have no services to offer. You cannot financially compensate or reward testes/hands/brains. Testes/hands/brains are objects. Inseparable from the human being that it is a part of.



I believe we should be nonsexist. You disagree.

That means either banning surrogacy AND sperm donation, as both involve producing a human with the use of organs, or neither.

I'd prefer neither, but both is OK too, I guess. The thing I won't let you get away with is your fundamentally sexist and logically inconsistent position.

Ok? And? How does this, and the scientific definition of human relate to this, when what we are discussing is ethics and law?

They purchase the womb for the nine months it is being used.

Her womb is purchased for nine months, not forever. The baby is indeed purchased, just plain purchased. Both transactions are immoral and unethical.

A womb is purchased for nine months. A human being is purchased afterwards.

For nine months, it is purchased. They are using it as if it is theirs.

Of course they cannot, did I argue otherwise?

Yes? And? I never argued tests' services are purchased, did I? I specifically said their produce is.

No, as the testes make sperm anyway. What is needed is sperm. A womb is needed in this process for nine months to make a baby, which would not simply happen otherwise. As in, wombs, unlike testes and sperm, do not automatically make babies.

Yes? And? Organs are used by people to make goods and services. When did I ever argue that a brain has services to offer? Who are you, exactly, having this discussion with?

Again, you've exposed your views numerous times, and never convinced me. The conclusion of all your posts call me and the bans on surrogacy sexist and illogical, and I remain unconvinced, and I still don't care. So... Do you want another try?

Let's try a different tack.

What's the functional difference between a 24hr wet nurse that uses her tits to help a child grow and a surrogate who uses her womb to help a fetus grow?

[Olerand]

Ok? And? How does this, and the scientific definition of human relate to this, when what we are discussing is ethics and law?

They purchase the womb for the nine months it is being used.

Her womb is purchased for nine months, not forever. The baby is indeed purchased, just plain purchased. Both transactions are immoral and unethical.

A womb is purchased for nine months. A human being is purchased afterwards.

For nine months, it is purchased. They are using it as if it is theirs.

Of course they cannot, did I argue otherwise?

Yes? And? I never argued tests' services are purchased, did I? I specifically said their produce is.

No, as the testes make sperm anyway. What is needed is sperm. A womb is needed in this process for nine months to make a baby, which would not simply happen otherwise. As in, wombs, unlike testes and sperm, do not automatically make babies.

Yes? And? Organs are used by people to make goods and services. When did I ever argue that a brain has services to offer? Who are you, exactly, having this discussion with?

Again, you've exposed your views numerous times, and never convinced me. The conclusion of all your posts call me and the bans on surrogacy sexist and illogical, and I remain unconvinced, and I still don't care. So... Do you want another try?

Let's try a different tack.

What's the difference between a wet nurse that uses her tits to help a child grow and a surrogate who uses her womb to help a fetus grow?

You never purchase the woman's breasts. She is, actually, providing a service. Alternatively, perhaps she is providing a product, which is human milk if the child never suckles from the teat but just drinks the milk.
Your child is not parked inside her for nine months. You are never purchasing a human product from her. Her breasts are not "rented out", neither is her womb, nor anything else. She has nothing inside her and may cease to be your child's wet nurse, there is no "rent" to be paid, no organs purchased.

[Galloism]

Let's try a different tack.

What's the difference between a wet nurse that uses her tits to help a child grow and a surrogate who uses her womb to help a fetus grow?

You never purchase the woman's breasts.

You don't purchase the womb either, or you'd get to keep it.

You get to keep things you buy.

She is, actually, providing a service. Alternatively, perhaps she is providing a product, which is human milk if the child never suckles from the teat but just drinks the milk.

If there wasn't a child suckling, she wouldn't produce milk.

Your child is not parked inside her for nine months.

Inside/on top of, I'm not sure what the difference is.

Her breasts are not "rented out", neither is her womb, nor anything else. She has nothing inside her and may cease to be your child's wet nurse, there is no "rent" to be paid, no organs purchased.

[/quote]

You typically don't pay wet nurses by the feeding, but by the week/month to be continuously serving, not that that's hugely relevant (it's a mere structural pay difference). In fact, the pay structure of wet nurses is typically the same as surrogates, sans the medical expense reimbursement (while surrogates are typically reimbursed for medical expenses, wet nurses are not).

Her breasts "rented out" to the extent a surrogates womb is "rented out". There's no difference except which organ is being used to produce the output (namely: growth of the offspring).

[Olerand]

You never purchase the woman's breasts.

You don't purchase the womb either, or you'd get to keep it.

You get to keep things you buy.

She is, actually, providing a service. Alternatively, perhaps she is providing a product, which is human milk if the child never suckles from the teat but just drinks the milk. [/quote{

If there wasn't a child suckling, she wouldn't produce milk.


Inside/on top of, I'm not sure what the difference is.

You typically don't pay wet nurses by the feeding, but by the week/month to be continuously serving, not that that's hugely relevant (it's a mere structural pay difference). In fact, the pay structure of wet nurses is typically the same as surrogates, sans the medical expense reimbursement (while surrogates are typically reimbursed for medical expenses, wet nurses are not).

Her breasts "rented out" to the extent a surrogates womb is "rented out". There's no difference except which organ is being used to produce the output (namely: growth of the offspring).

I never said you buy, I said you purchase. Purchase is: to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent, it may also be buy permanently. I never meant it as buying permanently, I meant it as the exchange of money for a product, for a determined or undetermined time period.

Her breasts are never "rented out". Her breasts are in the position that the man's testes are in. Milk is being produced, what is desired is her milk, not her breasts. Her breasts happen to make milk. If she milks herself and sells the milk, what is needed from her has been acquired.
In a womb's case, the womb is rented to put a baby in, as it does not simply make babies (unlike breasts and milk, unlike testes and semen), and then the baby is purchased. Both are unethical.

[Galloism]

You don't purchase the womb either, or you'd get to keep it.

You get to keep things you buy.



You typically don't pay wet nurses by the feeding, but by the week/month to be continuously serving, not that that's hugely relevant (it's a mere structural pay difference). In fact, the pay structure of wet nurses is typically the same as surrogates, sans the medical expense reimbursement (while surrogates are typically reimbursed for medical expenses, wet nurses are not).

Her breasts "rented out" to the extent a surrogates womb is "rented out". There's no difference except which organ is being used to produce the output (namely: growth of the offspring).

I never said you buy, I said you purchase. Purchase is: to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent, it may also be buy permanently. I never meant it as buying permanently, I meant it as the exchange of money for a product, for a determined or undetermined time period.

Which doesn't make sense in the context of a womb. There is a contractual right to a rental property (such as a car) regardless of the wishes of the ultimate owner of the car. Such a contract typically can't be unilaterally cancelled, even if the company is in bankruptcy, the company in receivership must honor the contract even then - such leases can't be cancelled.

This contrasts significantly with a surrogate, who can jettison herself of the contract at any time. She may have to reimburse previously received funds sometimes (not usually, unless specified in the contract, and typically even then only if it's a willing termination without significant external factors). However, even then, it takes the form of a service contract, not much different than a wet nurse contract. In form, the contract even specifies its for services performed, not a purchase of a baby.

Her breasts are never "rented out". Her breasts are in the position that the man's testes are in. Milk is being produced, what is desired is her milk, not her breasts. Her breasts happen to make milk. If she milks herself and sells the milk, what is needed from her has been acquired.
In a womb's case, the womb is rented to put a baby in, as it does not simply make babies (unlike breasts and milk, unlike testes and semen), and then the baby is purchased. Both are unethical.

Breasts don't simply 'produce milk'. They produce milk is specifically stimulated to do so and/or as a result of specific hormone supplements. If you hire a wet nurse, she generally has to induce lactation, which is quite the process as I understand, unless you lucked out and caught one right after her own child was weaned.

Even then, you are paying her to continually produce milk using her own breasts when the otherwise wouldn't for the purpose of growing a human.

[Olerand]

I never said you buy, I said you purchase. Purchase is: to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent, it may also be buy permanently. I never meant it as buying permanently, I meant it as the exchange of money for a product, for a determined or undetermined time period.

Which doesn't make sense in the context of a womb. There is a contractual right to a rental property (such as a car) regardless of the wishes of the ultimate owner of the car. Such a contract typically can't be unilaterally cancelled, even if the company is in bankruptcy, the company in receivership must honor the contract even then - such leases can't be cancelled.

This contrasts significantly with a surrogate, who can jettison herself of the contract at any time. She may have to reimburse previously received funds sometimes (not usually, unless specified in the contract, and typically even then only if it's a willing termination without significant external factors). However, even then, it takes the form of a service contract, not much different than a wet nurse contract. In form, the contract even specifies its for services performed, not a purchase of a baby.

Her breasts are never "rented out". Her breasts are in the position that the man's testes are in. Milk is being produced, what is desired is her milk, not her breasts. Her breasts happen to make milk. If she milks herself and sells the milk, what is needed from her has been acquired.
In a womb's case, the womb is rented to put a baby in, as it does not simply make babies (unlike breasts and milk, unlike testes and semen), and then the baby is purchased. Both are unethical.

Breasts don't simply 'produce milk'. They produce milk is specifically stimulated to do so and/or as a result of specific hormone supplements. If you hire a wet nurse, she generally has to induce lactation, which is quite the process as I understand, unless you lucked out and caught one right after her own child was weaned.

Even then, you are paying her to continually produce milk using her own breasts when the otherwise wouldn't for the purpose of growing a human.

How does a surrogate "jettison" herself out of her contract? Do surrogacy contracts in America include annulment clauses that permit abortions?
And it is unfortunate if that is the form of contract it takes, as there is no service provided. The production or gestation of a human being should not be a "service" you can offer.

As for breastfeeding, I was not aware you can even induce artificial lactation, and from what I understand it necessitates a woman to take hormones and drugs to reach the stage where she can lactate. I find that excessive, and I'm surprised it's even a thing. In as much as wet nurses exist in
France, and as much as I am aware, it is women who are naturally lactating.
Breastfeeding itself is not popular in France and few mothers do it, and even less hire a wet nurse.

The point still stands, what is needed of her is her milk. She can very well use one of those breast pump machines and sell her milk.

[Galloism]

Which doesn't make sense in the context of a womb. There is a contractual right to a rental property (such as a car) regardless of the wishes of the ultimate owner of the car. Such a contract typically can't be unilaterally cancelled, even if the company is in bankruptcy, the company in receivership must honor the contract even then - such leases can't be cancelled.

This contrasts significantly with a surrogate, who can jettison herself of the contract at any time. She may have to reimburse previously received funds sometimes (not usually, unless specified in the contract, and typically even then only if it's a willing termination without significant external factors). However, even then, it takes the form of a service contract, not much different than a wet nurse contract. In form, the contract even specifies its for services performed, not a purchase of a baby.


Breasts don't simply 'produce milk'. They produce milk is specifically stimulated to do so and/or as a result of specific hormone supplements. If you hire a wet nurse, she generally has to induce lactation, which is quite the process as I understand, unless you lucked out and caught one right after her own child was weaned.

Even then, you are paying her to continually produce milk using her own breasts when the otherwise wouldn't for the purpose of growing a human.

How does a surrogate "jettison" herself out of her contract? Do surrogacy contracts in America include annulment clauses that permit abortions?

Typically yes, but even if not, the surrogate can still abort at any time. Bodily sovereignty and all that shit.

And it is unfortunate if that is the form of contract it takes, as there is no service provided. The production of gestation of a human being should not be a "service" you can offer.

Making a child grow using your personal organs is or is not a service. If it is a service, then both a surrogate and a wet nurse are performing a service. If it is not, then neither a surrogate nor a wet nurse is performing a service.

As for breastfeeding, I was not aware you can even induce artificial lactation, and from what I understand it necessitates a woman to take hormones and drugs to reach the stage where she can lactate. I find that excessive, and I'm surprised it's even a thing. In as much as wet nurses exist in
France, and as much as I am aware, it is women who are naturally lactating.

Natural lactation ceases without suckling or pumping. It's basic biology. If you have a wet nurse, whether selling milk or providing suckling services directly, she's using her organs to make a human grow in a way it wouldn't otherwise. Whether there's a third party intermediary or not is borderline irrelevant.

Breastfeeding itself is not popular in France and few mothers do it, and even less hire a wet nurse.

That's too bad. Breastfeeding is a lot healthier than formula if the mother/wet nurse has no issues.

The point still stands, what is needed of her is her milk. She can very well use one of those breast pump machines and sell her milk.

I'm not sure how it matters if surrogacy is a direct contract or via a third party intermediary. Same with a wet nurse.

[Costa Fierro]

That's a joke, right?

Why would I joke? I think this would be a great step in bringing back control of relationships and children back to men.

[Costa Fierro]

It's actually about emotional expression and fun.

Sure it is.

Also, masturbation doesn't release the same bonding chemicals and hormones that sex itself does.

Sex doesn't release any chemicals outside of the ones in response to pleasure stimuli. That's it. And masturbation serves as a means to engage in an adequate sexual release.

[Luminesa]

You don't purchase the womb either, or you'd get to keep it.

You get to keep things you buy.



You typically don't pay wet nurses by the feeding, but by the week/month to be continuously serving, not that that's hugely relevant (it's a mere structural pay difference). In fact, the pay structure of wet nurses is typically the same as surrogates, sans the medical expense reimbursement (while surrogates are typically reimbursed for medical expenses, wet nurses are not).

Her breasts "rented out" to the extent a surrogates womb is "rented out". There's no difference except which organ is being used to produce the output (namely: growth of the offspring).

I never said you buy, I said you purchase. Purchase is: to acquire by the payment of money or its equivalent, it may also be buy permanently. I never meant it as buying permanently, I meant it as the exchange of money for a product, for a determined or undetermined time period.

Her breasts are never "rented out". Her breasts are in the position that the man's testes are in. Milk is being produced, what is desired is her milk, not her breasts. Her breasts happen to make milk. If she milks herself and sells the milk, what is needed from her has been acquired.
In a womb's case, the womb is rented to put a baby in, as it does not simply make babies (unlike breasts and milk, unlike testes and semen), and then the baby is purchased. Both are unethical.

It would depend on how the womb is used. If it's used, for example, when a woman has sex, gets pregnant, but has trouble keeping the baby and puts it there to help it grow, that doesn't seem as controversial as, for example, doing IVF and then putting the baby in an artificial womb.

[New haven america]

It's actually about emotional expression and fun.

Sure it is.

Also, masturbation doesn't release the same bonding chemicals and hormones that sex itself does.

Sex doesn't release any chemicals outside of the ones in response to pleasure stimuli. That's it. And masturbation serves as a means to engage in an adequate sexual release.

Yes, it does: Oxytocin (Masturbation doesn't release anywhere near the level that sex does) and endorphins (Which, while released during exhilarating activities and sex, aren't really released during masturbation (Unless you fap a lot)).

There's a reason the same chemicals released during masturbation aren't exactly the same/at the same levels as those released during sex, if they were, the term "My girlfriend is my right hand" would take a much more literal meaning.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes, it does: Oxytocin (Masturbation doesn't release anywhere near the level that sex does) and endorphins (Which, while released during exhilarating activities and sex, aren't really released during masturbation (Unless you fap a lot)).

Both of those are released at similar or higher levels during masturbation than sex does. Both of them are released in response to any sexual pleasure stimuli.

There's a reason the same chemicals released during masturbation aren't exactly the same/at the same levels as those released during sex, if they were, the term "My girlfriend is my right hand" would take a much more literal meaning.

That term does. For a lot of people. Masturbation for both men and women is more than adequate to achieve orgasm and release those chemicals. Sex outside of procreation simply isn't needed, especially for women, who have a lot of tools and toys to help them achieve better and more frequent orgasms during masturbation than they would do during sex.

Edit: come to think of it, if women are able to achieve orgasm and they can figure out the genetic material that determines the sex of the baby, then the widespread introduction of artificial wombs would render men useless outside of physical uses relating to manual labour.