I like liveaction.org(and other pro-life websites) because they defend the vulnerable, the preborn and the disabled from abortion and assisted suicide.
This article from it, however, says commercial surrogacy is like slavery. That's not true since everybody involved gets to keep their freedom. They enter into the contract voluntarily. Where are commercial surrogates forced to pick cotton, as actual slaves did? Nowhere!
This says surrogate mothers tend to be lowwr-income. Perhaps that's true, but they won't be poor when they get paid for commercial surrogacy. They're paid a lot, which returns us to my previous point that it's not slavery because slaves were paid slave wages(low wages).
Also, the article quotes a self-proclaimed feminist and humanist. I do think these two ideologies are bad, but when I googled her name it says she's against sex selective abortion, which I agree with. Many feminists however do support abortion. It does seem like top feminist Susan B. Anthony was pro-life though she didn't have children herself. When I saw the humanists' Wikipedia page, I noticed it says she worked in a family planning clinic, which is very suspicious. Sometimes abortions occur there. Also some contraception like IUD and the hormonal birth control pill can cause abortions according to Live Action. This is why I'm pro-life: contraception should be banned. Why is a pro-life website quoting a feminist who supports family planning?
She says to adopt children instead. But people want children related to them. Also the author of this article says surrogacy removes a child from her mother. That's not true, if a donor's egg was used as is might be the case. The surrogate is not genetically related to the child.
The article says those born of commercial surrogacy are more likely to have disease. So that's bad? Don't disabled people have a right to life though? Of course even people like those with down syndrome have the most important right to life.
If commercial surrogacy is as bad as they say, what's the solution? Aborting all the children in the bellies of commercial surrogates? Of course not.
Also, pro-lifers say it's bad that there's "840,000" frozen embryos from IVF. How do you expect to give life to these children? Perhaps people can adopt them, the parents can be convinced to implant them, but also the government can hire surrogates to give them life(I know they have life already, but I don't know how else to word it).
This article from it, however, says commercial surrogacy is like slavery. That's not true since everybody involved gets to keep their freedom. They enter into the contract voluntarily. Where are commercial surrogates forced to pick cotton, as actual slaves did? Nowhere!
This says surrogate mothers tend to be lowwr-income. Perhaps that's true, but they won't be poor when they get paid for commercial surrogacy. They're paid a lot, which returns us to my previous point that it's not slavery because slaves were paid slave wages(low wages).
Also, the article quotes a self-proclaimed feminist and humanist. I do think these two ideologies are bad, but when I googled her name it says she's against sex selective abortion, which I agree with. Many feminists however do support abortion. It does seem like top feminist Susan B. Anthony was pro-life though she didn't have children herself. When I saw the humanists' Wikipedia page, I noticed it says she worked in a family planning clinic, which is very suspicious. Sometimes abortions occur there. Also some contraception like IUD and the hormonal birth control pill can cause abortions according to Live Action. This is why I'm pro-life: contraception should be banned. Why is a pro-life website quoting a feminist who supports family planning?
She says to adopt children instead. But people want children related to them. Also the author of this article says surrogacy removes a child from her mother. That's not true, if a donor's egg was used as is might be the case. The surrogate is not genetically related to the child.
The article says those born of commercial surrogacy are more likely to have disease. So that's bad? Don't disabled people have a right to life though? Of course even people like those with down syndrome have the most important right to life.
If commercial surrogacy is as bad as they say, what's the solution? Aborting all the children in the bellies of commercial surrogates? Of course not.
Also, pro-lifers say it's bad that there's "840,000" frozen embryos from IVF. How do you expect to give life to these children? Perhaps people can adopt them, the parents can be convinced to implant them, but also the government can hire surrogates to give them life(I know they have life already, but I don't know how else to word it).
