Community Chat

[Elstongunn]

On 8/6/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

On 8/6/2014 terrier3 said:

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

On 8/6/2014 SydneyH said:

On 8/6/2014 sidsmom said:

I would NEVER be arrogant enough to judge anyone in this situation. Some can, some can't. Doesn't make it right or wrong.

Agreed, not everyone is equipped to parent a special needs child.

ITA.

The child also had heart problems and was looking at multiple surgeries over a period of years.

Their lives, their money, their contract, their decision.

Children aren't dogs or livestock...and women shouldn't be used as brood mares...especially women from poor countries.

It may be perfectly LEGAL, but that doesn't make it MORAL.

Seriously, IMO, the Morality Train left the station decades ago. This is just the natural progression of decisions that were started a very long time ago.

IMO we're more moral than we used to be in many ways.

When I was a kid, spousal abuse was common and kept under the table. There was no help for women or children who were beaten. There was no anti-rape movement. You heard about kittens drowned in bags quite often. Laws discriminated against people of color.

People can't get away with any of that nowadays, and if they try, other people will come down on them.

I totally agree with your statements.

[terrier3]

On 8/6/2014 NoelSeven said:

.

IMO we're more moral than we used to be in many ways.

When I was a kid, spousal abuse was common and kept under the table. There was no help for women or children who were beaten. There was no anti-rape movement. You heard about kittens drowned in bags quite often. Laws discriminated against people of color.

People can't get away with any of that nowadays, and if they try, other people will come down on them.

I never recall that people used to being judgmental if you wanted a pedigreed dog. Now some people are all over you for it. They say it's wrong to buy a certain breed when there are plenty of pound dogs looking for a good home.

That is a debate about animals.

Breeding for "perfect" babies and paying women for their eggs and to rent their wombs may be technically possible - but how can it be justified when parents reject the imperfect child, like it's the runt of the litter? The father might well have been responsible for the less than perfect child - older fathers are more statistically likely to have children with problems.

[occasionalrain]

On 8/6/2014 terrier3 said:

On 8/6/2014 LipstickDiva said:

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

I don't think anyone has the right to judge anyone else on their level of compassion or morals. And as i mentioned in an earlier post, the Morality Train left the station decades ago.

As far as if something happens to either of them later in life? How many times have you heard or seen of elder people getting tossed into a nursing home and the reasons given by the people/children who put them there? "We can't afford to take care of their needs," "We don't have the schedule/time/equipment/space/emotional/physical strength, money...", etc., etc., etc. Do you question their morality or compassion?

It is their life, their family they want to build, their decision. Just as it is the decision of people to abort early, late, or not at all for any number of reasons.

Well yeah I am judging them. I think they are horrible people.

Not everyone's morality train left the station decades ago.

There are still right and wrong behaviors.

Selfish and unselfish too.

The bio dad and his wife are selfish. And people have the right to call them out on it...which is why it became a story in the news.

Thankfully most people and most parents to be are not like these two.

I don't see how they were selfish, they held up their end of the contract.

Some people believe the moral thing to do is to abort a child who has defects to spare him a life of limitations, pain, and hospital stays. What's a moral decision to one is immoral to another.

[Cakers1]

On 8/6/2014 terrier3 said:

On 8/6/2014 Cakers1 said:

Another wonderful example of "if the child isn't perfect, the child is disposable".

And I agree with Vcamp about contracting for babies.

People get upset when buyers only want pedigreed dogs..

Yet they think it's A-OK to contract with a woman in a foreign country, pay her for her eggs and then reject one of the children because it's not "perfect."

How miserable can people get?

There are plenty of already born children ready and waiting to be adopted. Maybe even some right there in Thailand. I bet they can even take an adoptable child for testing - to make sure they are getting a healthy child.

But no - the dad needed his own precious genes in the child...but it had better be perfect to boot!

Agree. Also agree with your other statement that children are not livestock.

[terrier3]

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

I agree that just because something is legal doesn't make it right or ethical. But I really doubt there is one definition of what is moral that everyone will agree on. That appears to be a fuzzy concept for many.

These parents wanted to abort the child early on in the pregnancy once they learned of the Down's Syndrome diagnosis. The surrogate overrode their decision. She did not have that right, but she took it on herself and in doing so, she should take on the responsibility of raising the child.

Fetuses get aborted all of the time for a variety of reasons and it is generally accepted by society in the U.S. as legal and moral and a right of the parents to do that regardless of their reasons. In the U.S., no one gets to question a woman's right or reason for an abortion (legally)...only that they are available to her. The fact that THIS was made public doesn't change that right in the U.S.

I have no idea where you stand on abortion, but anyone who supports the right of abortion under any construct really doesn't have the right to get all morally outraged over this couple.

Termination is a similar issue.

Just because it is legal and can be done, doesn't make it morally right.

That is why we have religious and moral leaders to hopefully guide us to a better, less selfish way of life.

I'm not saying the parents weren't legally within their rights to do what they did. Just like women can legally terminate their pregnancies. Both groups are free to make their own decisions, but we are equally free to say there might be a better way to solve problems.

Legal does not equal MORAL.

[Cakers1]

On 8/6/2014 occasional rain said:

I don't see how they were selfish, they held up their end of the contract.

Some people believe the moral thing to do is to abort a child who has defects to spare him a life of limitations, pain, and hospital stays. What's a moral decision to one is immoral to another.

That's a cop-out statement. And a slap in the face to all parents who have dealt with disabled children.

[NoelSeven]

On 8/6/2014 terrier3 said:

On 8/6/2014 NoelSeven said:

.

IMO we're more moral than we used to be in many ways.

When I was a kid, spousal abuse was common and kept under the table. There was no help for women or children who were beaten. There was no anti-rape movement. You heard about kittens drowned in bags quite often. Laws discriminated against people of color.

People can't get away with any of that nowadays, and if they try, other people will come down on them.

I never recall that people used to being judgmental if you wanted a pedigreed dog. Now some people are all over you for it. They say it's wrong to buy a certain breed when there are plenty of pound dogs looking for a good home.

That is a debate about animals.

Breeding for "perfect" babies and paying women for their eggs and to rent their wombs may be technically possible - but how can it be justified when parents reject the imperfect child, like it's the runt of the litter? The father might well have been responsible for the less than perfect child - older fathers are more statistically likely to have children with problems.

That's what I said, too, on this line.

As for how can surrogacy be justified when parents reject the imperfect child, the answer is that not all do. We don't throw out something just because there are a few rotten apples. There will always be a few rotten apples in every area of life.

[NoelSeven]

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

On 8/6/2014 NoelSeven said:

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

On 8/6/2014 terrier3 said:

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

On 8/6/2014 SydneyH said:

On 8/6/2014 sidsmom said:

I would NEVER be arrogant enough to judge anyone in this situation. Some can, some can't. Doesn't make it right or wrong.

Agreed, not everyone is equipped to parent a special needs child.

ITA.

The child also had heart problems and was looking at multiple surgeries over a period of years.

Their lives, their money, their contract, their decision.

Children aren't dogs or livestock...and women shouldn't be used as brood mares...especially women from poor countries.

It may be perfectly LEGAL, but that doesn't make it MORAL.

Seriously, IMO, the Morality Train left the station decades ago. This is just the natural progression of decisions that were started a very long time ago.

IMO we're more moral than we used to be in many ways.

When I was a kid, spousal abuse was common and kept under the table. There was no help for women or children who were beaten. There was no anti-rape movement. You heard about kittens drowned in bags quite often. Laws discriminated against people of color.

People can't get away with any of that nowadays, and if they try, other people will come down on them.

I totally agree with your statements.

I could have gone on, but didn't want to get too preachy, lol.

[occasionalrain]

On 8/6/2014 Cakers1 said:

On 8/6/2014 occasional rain said:

I don't see how they were selfish, they held up their end of the contract.

Some people believe the moral thing to do is to abort a child who has defects to spare him a life of limitations, pain, and hospital stays. What's a moral decision to one is immoral to another.

That's a cop-out statement. And a slap in the face to all parents who have dealt with disabled children.

There is nothing cop out about it. I would not knowingly bring into the world a disabled child who would have no chance at a great life. To me, that is the right thing to do, it's what I would have wanted my parents to do.

I'm against prolonging suffering in people or animals. I don't think people who know their child will be born disabled and give birth to him anyway are great people; I think they are wrong.

[Elstongunn]

On 8/6/2014 terrier3 said:

On 8/6/2014 ktlynam said:

I agree that just because something is legal doesn't make it right or ethical. But I really doubt there is one definition of what is moral that everyone will agree on. That appears to be a fuzzy concept for many.

These parents wanted to abort the child early on in the pregnancy once they learned of the Down's Syndrome diagnosis. The surrogate overrode their decision. She did not have that right, but she took it on herself and in doing so, she should take on the responsibility of raising the child.

Fetuses get aborted all of the time for a variety of reasons and it is generally accepted by society in the U.S. as legal and moral and a right of the parents to do that regardless of their reasons. In the U.S., no one gets to question a woman's right or reason for an abortion (legally)...only that they are available to her. The fact that THIS was made public doesn't change that right in the U.S.

I have no idea where you stand on abortion, but anyone who supports the right of abortion under any construct really doesn't have the right to get all morally outraged over this couple.

Termination is a similar issue.

Just because it is legal and can be done, doesn't make it morally right.

That is why we have religious and moral leaders to hopefully guide us to a better, less selfish way of life.

I'm not saying the parents weren't legally within their rights to do what they did. Just like women can legally terminate their pregnancies. Both groups are free to make their own decisions, but we are equally free to say there might be a better way to solve problems.

Legal does not equal MORAL.

That's certainly true.

People have different views of what is moral and what isn't (outside of the more obvious ones of murder, etc.). People on this very board have stated that there are times when it's acceptable to lie, steal, cheat (depending on the circumstances facing the person(s) at the time). Everyone draws their own line. I have no idea where this couple's "lines" are drawn and why, so I really don't judge their decision.