>>313175not that anon but
There's multiple angles to approach the problem from, the realities and requirements of gestation are a huge part of the problem but IMO they are also currently protective. There is one person involved in surrogacy almost no one ever talks or thinks about and it's the child. It has sometimes been only the gestational mother who has acted in the interests of the child, against the desires of the purchasing-parents (like a gay couple who wanted a disabled kid aborted, surrogate mom didn't).
What are the rights and needs of the child? If it is unacceptable to deprive a child of their birth mother by force once they exist, is it right to intentionally bring a child into existence with that goal from the outset? Also we have never been able to fully do this, but if we become able to gestate children without women…is it actually acceptable to deprive a developing human of growth within a maternal womb? The loss of real voice, real heartbeat, organic experience of mother's movement and even the taste of the foods she will eat…We can't yet imagine how artificial gestation might fuck up a person's psyche, I find it disgusting how replaceable they see the maternal role.
We are either going to have to reckon directly with the rights of children, or walk headfirst into a horrific dystopia where they collectively cease to be real persons with rights at all (and inevitably this will impact the real personhood and rights of adults). Worst-of-both-worlds scenario is birth control & abortion in any circumstance are illegal, while simultaneously mass IVF and artificial surrogacy pump out mentally disturbed loveless children for either the personal fulfillment and amusement of adults or possibly as state property.
Personally I am against IVF, surrogacy in any form, and artificial insemination. Children should not be born except by an actual 'coupling', and if you want to raise someone but cant reproduce you should take this as a calling to perform the great charity of adoption.
