US Clamping Down on Indian Surrogacy Industry

by W.F. Price on January 25, 2010

Chennai:

Perhaps sensing a threat from foreign wombs and fertile ova, US consulate officials have been closely scrutinizing children of American citizens – in some cases interrogating the parents – carried to term by Indian surrogate mothers or otherwise conceived by ART.

The Times of India speculates that this may be due to worries about Indian court rulings vis a vis custody, but it is more likely that, in the spirit of IMBRA, American feminists in powerful positions (e.g. our Secretary of State) have ordered these measures to safeguard the inflated value of American women, who could be bypassed as mothers by men seeking to have children by purchasing donor eggs and having them implanted in Indian surrogates.

US consulate officials in Chennai have remained tight-lipped, repeating only legal definitions of citizenship when asked about policy.

HT @ Virtual Logs

{ 92 comments… read them below or add one }

piercedhead January 25, 2010 at 14:18

It’s very obviously a threat to women’s monopoly on reproduction in the U.S.

Allowing men to have families without an American woman completely undermines the legal structure that keeps men in servitude. Such men would be able to think and act according to their own consciences, without fear of state agents seizing his children, confiscating his property through divorce courts and imprisoning him on unprovable charges.

Ironically, denying these children American citizenship may ultimately be in their best interests, provided their fathers are able to raise them in another country (and very possibly in the father’s best interest as well).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Br3t January 25, 2010 at 14:23

If you needed any more proof that the viewpoint put forward by this website is spot on – here it is…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Puma January 25, 2010 at 14:35

Newsflash!: US men not allowed to breed without being subjected to divorce, child-support, alimony, and asset theft.

Read all about it ! ! !

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 25, 2010 at 14:35

… wow they really got us by the balls now guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Womb Police January 25, 2010 at 14:40

This does not affect me as I can’t even stand to be around children, let alone consider having one.
But I do regret that this will hamper the ability of men to enjoy a more fruitful life if they (understandably) want to avoid women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Konkvistador January 25, 2010 at 14:53

I see the largest US trade union has decided to make imports into the US more difficult. I predict the result will not be a resurgence of domestic suppliers but rather a drop in consumption.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 25, 2010 at 15:03

It some respects, it’s rather a clever move.

We men who refuse to accept that our role is to service the breeding-herd (aka ‘society’) and thereafter serve until death, are political liabilities and better out of the picture. Where we go doesn’t much matter – prison, graveyard, other countries – it’s all much of a muchness. The important thing, like all political threats, is to prevent us from influencing other men. Forcing us to live abroad if we won’t accept family rules as issued from the capital removes a rebellious element from society, and leaves that more acquiescent, willing-to-serve male as the predominant gene provider.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 25, 2010 at 15:05

This is an interesting subject. You might want to know this: here, in Quebec, there are 14 000 children who live with same sex parents (80/20 rule).

Many gay men have been using surrogate mothers (all of them, in fact) and no one says a word. It is perfectly legal and no women’s movement says anything negative about it. And on top of that, the two mothers or the two fathers are considered true parents by the law.
If things can change that much in a crappy province, why shouldn’t it happen in the U.S.? Eh?

So, what is being said in this here article tells me that American women are presently very, very afraid and concerned. Good sign, according to me.

And there is, I think, a workaround (always is one) to the refusal of US authorities to recognize citizenship: simple: the Indian surrogate mother takes a trip to the U.S. and manages to give birth on US soil.
Then, the authorities are screwed. Nice, eh?

Now, you will tell me that she will not be admitted on U.S. soil?
Simple: she can fly from Montreal to Cuba… flying over the U.S. and giving birth in the air, OVER U.S. territory.
It takes good synchronization, I know.

Those workarounds don’t work? Who cares: find another one, and another one until one of them works and you got the system screwed.

Men are resourceful, aren’t we?

Now this: if every man in the U.S. spent time working out ways to screw the system….., the government would collapse in no time flat. Sabotage is the word.

Rather than complain about the gender war, we should enjoy it. War is a man’s game, we have a worthy opponent (better yet: 2 worthy opponents).
The war will last for a long time: the warriors will make a comeback. This is exciting! Wish I was young..

Do you feel the adrenalin in your blood?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 15:06

I am quite familiar with this industry, and many of you know.

There is no way to clamp down on it. Period.

Most of the surrogacy services are used by US women, often married, who are too old to carry. Single guys using this are a very tiny percentage.

Plus, how will they deny citizenship to these babies, while also giving amnesty to illegal workers from the Southern border?

It won’t happen, despite their efforts. This is another example of overreach going too far, since most of the customers are US *women* (single or married), rather than single guys.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 15:12

Let me also add that most of the surrogacy volume in India is from Europeans and Japanese. Americans are just starting to join in.

So the ‘value’ of women in Europe and Japan is already being affected, and America cannot succeed at protectionism here.

I can also tell you that the Indian entrepreneurs running these clinics are very sharp. Way sharper than some feminOrc harpy. The Indian surrogacy industry WILL find workarounds (via Mexico, if necessary) and will prevail, for sure.

Bring in ON, feminOrcs. You have no idea who you are up against.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta January 25, 2010 at 15:17

Meanwhile, anchor babies from Mexico are citizens. Any Mexican mamacita can jump the border, and as long as the spawn are birthed in the USA, they’re automatic citizens.

Makes you shed a tear, the way the USA is today, don’t it? We surely do incentivize all the right behaviors!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 15:34

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people taht hire surrogates are straight couples where the woman is not able to carry a child or gay men. The government is probably trying to prevent Indian women that carry the child for Americans from then claiming citizenship. I find it highly unlikely that this is a move to keep single men from having babies without women. How many single straight men are in the market for surrogates anyway?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Welmer January 25, 2010 at 15:43

I am quite familiar with this industry, and many of you know.

There is no way to clamp down on it. Period.

-TFH

Oh they’ll try, trust me.

Most of the surrogacy services are used by US women, often married, who are too old to carry. Single guys using this are a very tiny percentage.

Yes, for now. But don’t you think they can anticipate things?

Additionally, it is a form of protectionism no matter who uses the service. What control does the US gov. have over Indian wombs? Very little…

Remember that Steinem video I posted a while back? In the course of her interview Gloria Steinem states that control over fertility is the linchpin of feminism. Surely, Hillary Clinton is familiar with Steinem’s philosophy, and I’m pretty sure this order came straight from Hillary. That’s why the consular officials won’t talk about it at all — it came straight from the top.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 15:43

I am pretty sure that the vast majority of people taht hire surrogates are straight couples where the woman is not able to carry

Yes, this is correct. Most of the volume is for women who can’t carry, and most of the volume is European and Japanese, rather than American (to date).

What feminOrcs will instead do as far as single guys getting a kid this way is, a ‘state worker’ will come by and take the kid away since ‘such an upbringing is not ideal for the child’, thus making the kid a ward of the state.

Their approach will be this.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 25, 2010 at 15:46

Oh, BTW, get in touch through the comment form, TFH, and I’ll tell you how your friends in Chennai can get around this. I won’t publish it here because this site is starting to get around, and there’s no point in making it easier for the other side.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 15:47

Protectionism applied to any ‘manufacturing’ business (whether for cars, software, or babies) always has far more devastating effects for the very inflated workers that the ‘protectionists’ were trying to protect.

Manufacturing protectionism = Detriot and Cleveland of today.

High-tech protectionism = Outsourcing to the same people who are now staying in India/China = these people not becoming high-income California taxpayers and home buyers = California budget crisis of today.

US healthcare industry with inflated costs = the next industry to experience the exact same process.

Wombs of American women will experience the same phenomenon. To halt the tiny number of single guys doing this, which at most would displace 0.1% of US women, will have a blowback comparable to what I described above.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 15:49

Welmer,

I’ll do that.

You also have my email address from the Obsidian group email from a couple weeks ago (if you still have that).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 15:55

Fifth Horseman:
Are you sure that a father’s rights would be so easily dismissed?
But in Brazil, a male dominated society, Goldman almost had his son taken away by his ex wife’s family. Most Americans were shocked his rights as a father could be dismissed. The United States reunited Ilian Gonzales because he should be with his Cuban father. Does that not contradict your theory that in a woman dominated society father’s rights would not be recognised?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 16:03

Does that not contradict your theory that in a woman dominated society father’s rights would not be recognised?

You can’t possibly think father’s rights are upheld in the US…

Don’t use an anecdote used as a PR stunt from the 90s to make such a large assumption.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:07

I asked a couple single straight male friends if they would consider using a surrogate and they looked at me like I was coocoo for cocopuffs. It is completely rediculous to even suggest that men en masse are going to hire Indian women (or chinese, or russian or what ever) as surrogates to avoid having to deal with mothers. It is completely laughable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Welmer January 25, 2010 at 16:08

Don’t use an anecdote used as a PR stunt from the 90s to make such a large assumption.

-TFH

Actually, Reno was bound by the recently adopted Hague Convention in the Elian Gonzalez case. To break it at that point would have been politically ill-advised. Without that, I’m sure the Clinton administration would have given Elian’s father the finger, metaphorically speaking.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Puma January 25, 2010 at 16:20

It is completely rediculous to even suggest that men en masse are going to hire Indian women (or chinese, or russian or what ever) as surrogates to avoid having to deal with mothers. It is completely laughable.

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

- Mahatma Gandhi

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 25, 2010 at 16:22

When a society outsources even baby production you know it’s sick and deserves to die.

As far as ‘babies’ go? Get the snip. Kids are over-rated.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Globalman January 25, 2010 at 16:23

I like Gloria Steinhems comment:

“Even though we understand women can do what men can do”

Really? Nope. Not even close.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:24

I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself. The proof is in the pudding.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 16:24

First they ignore you,
then they laugh at you,
then they fight you,
then you win.

YES!!!!!!!

I am so glad people are seeing the wisdom of Gandhi’s strategic warfare tactics.

Being an ‘inactivist’ can be just as powerful as being an ‘activist’, in battles like these.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 25, 2010 at 16:25

It is completely rediculous to even suggest that men en masse are going to hire Indian women (or chinese, or russian or what ever) as surrogates to avoid having to deal with mothers. It is completely laughable.

I’m not laughing at it – though I probably would have 10 years ago.

I doubt any guy who has had his children taken from him, his home confiscated and been ordered to pay tens of thousands every month would be laughing at it.

I’ll bet Tiger Woods isn’t laughing at it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 25, 2010 at 16:31

I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself. The proof is in the pudding.

Only ’cause you DOUBLE DOG DARED me.

I also bet X years ago people laughed at women entering the workplace and out-earning their spouses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Mr.M January 25, 2010 at 16:34

At the idea of it, that is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:34

It is unfair that your kids have been taken away, and that your home is taken away.
However, most of the divorced women I know would love to have thier exes have a more active role in raising the kids but the fathers choose not to. It goes from dad sharing custody and having the kids 3 or 4 days a week, then it is just weekends, then just every other weekend, then maybe once a month dad takes the kids to the movies for an afternoon.
It is tragic that a father is denied access to his kids, but most of the time they do not want it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Snark January 25, 2010 at 16:37

Or maybe that’s just what the hens tell you, canadian girl.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:40

It is with baited breath that I wait for the birth announcements (in nine months).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 16:40

It is tragic that a father is denied access to his kids, but most of the time they do not want it.

Are you Indian?

A statement so out of touch with reality often comes from Indian women in the West.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 16:42

I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself. The proof is in the pudding

I know one. You really have no exposure to the real world, do you?

How does he do it? Easy. He gets his elderly parents to live with him.

Many problems solved at once, in a household of total harmony.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Mr.M January 25, 2010 at 16:43

To be fair – there are some “deadbeat dads” around. To deny it would be akin to denying that female to male DV exists.

However, canadian girl, try do a google on “maternal gatekeeping” and see what you can soak up. Tell us what you think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 25, 2010 at 16:45

It is tragic that a father is denied access to his kids, but most of the time they do not want it.

You’ve been watching too much television. Most men are keenly interested in their children. What they walk away from is an impossible environment whose very purpose is to drive them away. It is being relegated to house-boy that makes fatherhood today so distasteful for men – and I don’t say that from bitter experience, but from watching the lives of other men, some from a distance, others close up. Very close up. I don’t need to stick my neck in a noose to know what will happen.

The mere fact that men are beginning to talk about cutting women out of the picture and raising families without them should tell you that even when men foresake themselves women, they still want children. Surrogacy makes this possible – and the only obstacle to this is the state, not disinterested fathers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:45

The Fifth Horseman
I anxiously await the birth announcement of Fifth Horseman Jr.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Epoche* January 25, 2010 at 16:51

canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:24

I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself. The proof is in the pudding.

It really isnt that outrageous at all canadian girl. I am not in a position to do it now, but I may very well look into it at some point. I always wanted to have a son, and but the thought of child support and family court system terrifies me to death.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:52

The women I know have to beg and plead to get the fathers to visit thier kids, they make due with out the child support, they just want dad to show up. Men talk about shared custody, but it is just a ploy to get out of paying child support. They do it to spite thier ex wives but in the end the kids go with out. Talk about hating your ex more than loving your kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 16:54

Canadian girl : second request :

Are you Indian?

Silence equals yes, btw.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:57

No I am not, I am a canadian of Danish and Dutch decent.
I did not realise that it was important

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 25, 2010 at 16:59

The women I know have to beg and plead to get the fathers to visit thier kids, they make due with out the child support, they just want dad to show up. Men talk about shared custody, but it is just a ploy to get out of paying child support. They do it to spite thier ex wives but in the end the kids go with out. Talk about hating your ex more than loving your kids.

-canadian girl

They’re lying to you, or you’re lying to us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Roland3337 January 25, 2010 at 17:22

As Welmer noted, this is just another IMBRA-like attempt to corner the market for over-priced North American female supremisits.

Won’t work.

@canadian girl

Got a website for you:

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/

Dick is waiting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Zeta January 25, 2010 at 17:23

Guys, don’t let “canadian girl” derail the thread. (By the way, isn’t it funny how females always identify their sex in their user names? Their identity is so utterly tied up in their sex and the benefits they derive from it.)

She’s just more proof that 99% of women are useless when it comes to men’s issues. Ignore and move on, please. Hopefully you guys will realize entertaining such people doesn’t accomplish anything; it just encourages them.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zammo January 25, 2010 at 17:25

The common feminist narrative of “my ex-husband doesn’t visit the kids” is something that ex-wives are fairly well programmed to say. Remember that 80% of what women say is based on what is expected for them to say. For another example of this in addition to what canadian girl saying, consider online dating profiles where a single woman says that she is “looking for a nice guy”.

So an ex-wife says that her ex-husband refuses to visit the kids often… her actions show that she is actually making it very difficult for the father to maintain the visitation schedule. “I know it’s your turn with the kids this weekend but [insert excuse here] means you can’t take them.

As for the argument that shared parenting is a way for men to get out of paying child support, note that maintaining the current, flawed system is a way for women to keep receiving child support. Cash is not a substitute for active father involvement.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
BillWallace January 25, 2010 at 17:30

I am seriously considering surrogacy as an option for the time 2-6 years from now when I would like to begin having kids.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 25, 2010 at 17:34

As for the argument that shared parenting is a way for men to get out of paying child support, note that maintaining the current, flawed system is a way for women to keep receiving child support.

-zammo

Exactly. It sure is convenient to say “he just wants the kids so he doesn’t have to pay for them” when it’s up to the woman to determine whether he gets to see them anyway. What she’s really saying is: “he doesn’t want to give me money, so he has no right to see the kids.”

Women like canadian girl are scum for repeating that lie. They will be duly noted and dealt with through exactly the same measures men are currently subjected to when feminism fails them, so it will be fair and equitable, just like it is when men are thrown out of their houses and ordered to pay their ex wives while they enjoy a string of casual sexual encounters in the room adjacent to their young children.

No amount of sleeping with policemen and family court judges will do the job when feminism is finally smashed.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Teacher January 25, 2010 at 17:35

‘It is with baited breath that I wait for the birth announcements (in nine months).’

Apparently they don’t teach English in Canada.

“Bated breath” means “blunted breath,” i.e. breath that is labored due to lack of adequate oxygen.

“Baited breath” could only happen if a cat were to eat cheese and wait outside a mousehole.

Read a book.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
wow January 25, 2010 at 17:37

Canadian girl:
“It is tragic that a father is denied access to his kids, but most of the time they do not want to”

What utter bullshit.

Surely you are aware that shared parenting is NOT law in Canada? That a mother can simply deny a father 50-50 custody on a whim and he’d have to drop $15000 to go to court…….to lose.
Of course she’s not denying him 50-50 for the child support is she?….naaah! A woman wouldn’t do that, would she? Only men want their kids so they don’t have to pay c/s!

Fucking idiot!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 25, 2010 at 18:55

I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself. The proof is in the pudding. — Canadian Girl

Nannies are cheaper wives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
fedrz January 25, 2010 at 18:56

Nannies are cheaper ***than*** wives.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Nutz January 25, 2010 at 19:07

I’d also like to point out that current child support obligations set down by the courts are neither realistic nor actually required to be used for the children. The reality is that it’s just backdoor alimony. Any feminist is free to challenge this by requiring the recipients of child support supply documentation that the funds are in fact use for the child’s expenses.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Get Real January 25, 2010 at 19:13

I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself. The proof is in the pudding. — Canadian Girl
__

No, the proof is in the sandwich.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/12/a-note-on-commenting/#comment-14703

Name me one ‘surrogate’ that can equal or better dem apples!

Ain’t..

gonna..

happen.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 25, 2010 at 19:23

Don’t pay any heed to Canadian Girl. She is a liar and a lie monger.

And by the way, as a single father, and on behalf of all single fathers, I can heartily say: FUCK YOU, BITCH!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Elusive Wapiti January 25, 2010 at 19:36

“I double dog dare any man on this website to hire a surrogate and raise a kid by yourself”

I damn near adopted from a foreign country as a single dude. It was only the conviction of my faith that told me it was wrong to intentionally raise a child without a mother that kept me from doing so. If one looks at the numbers, buying an egg and hiring a surrogate is on par with the average cost of a bridezilla wedding in the States these days, and is a fraction of the cost of a contested divorce and 20 years of debt peonage.

As for raising a kid by myself, been there, done that. It’s not so hard, it just takes discipline.

What amazes me is just how fast women whip that one out…so to speak…as if the specter of being a single dad is too fearsome for men to comprehend. Whatever. You women have no idea just how good you have it.

And behind it all is the man-hatin’ notion that we’re no-good shirkers who findum fuckum and flee.

“The women I know have to beg and plead to get the fathers to visit thier kids…”

Maybe so. But remember that said visits are on her terms, on her schedule, and undoubtedly she makes it so painful, so demeaning that he is sorely tempted to walk away. It’s called visitation for a reason.

So you have some bitter gal-pals who “beg” the men they kicked out of their lives to see their kids. That’s nice. I wonder how many men on this board have tried like hell to see their kids more often only to be told to pound sand by both their psycho ex wives or by some jackass in a black robe.

Show of hands, anyone?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 25, 2010 at 19:44

But remember that said visits are on her terms, on her schedule, and undoubtedly she makes it so painful, so demeaning that he is sorely tempted to walk away. It’s called visitation for a reason.

This. And the new boyfriend/husband can be a bit annoying. Especially when your kids start calling him Daddy, and lose interest in seeing you anymore. But I’m sure that isn’t at all discouraging.
Missing some payments due to job loss and then ending up in the newspaper under “Wanted for non-support” probably kind of sucks, too.

I haven’t been following this thread, but when I opened it and saw that someone had managed to get Novaseeker to lose his cool, I decided to read through the comments. CanadianGirl needs a big dose of reality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z January 25, 2010 at 20:18

Guys,

Ive caught some heat for it, but let me state the two words again:

artificial wombs……..

…………..are already birthing rats and cats in Japan. Someday a man who does not want to marry, if he can afford it, will be able to have a child (or two, or three) of his own without risking the divorce-theft bonanza. Look for the Japanese (and probably the South Koreans) to lead the way as this technology moves from birthing animals to birthing people. It may not be 3 or 4 years from now, but it very well may be 15-18 years from now. Those nations (Korea and Japan) have well-below replacement birthrates and are -NOT- interested in seeing their historic populations simply physically replaced by others. Artifical wombs could allow any single man with means to replace himself without financial risk, and could be used as a lever against feminism’s greater financial abuses. The goal would be to get Swedish-style-law imlemented here, namely:

Assumption of joint custody, NO child support…………..and no alimony. Thus the power in a marriage becomes equal again, as no one sex has legal power to threaten the other with financial theft. Artifical wombs could also allow older women who had some eggs frozen the opportunity to have children if they get married late, so don’ t be suprised if they wont be -that-resisted by ordiary women. Only doctrinairre gender feminist will attempt to make them illegal. But even if they are illegal here, they wont be -there-, and you will simply be able to get on a plane and “get er’ done”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 20:19

The mere fact that men are beginning to talk about cutting women out of the picture and raising families without them should tell you that even when men foresake themselves women, they still want children.

Yes, but Canadian girl isn’t smart enough to connect such a complex set of dots.

The truth is, most men will always put their kids ahead of themselves. Most women will not. Canadian girl is merely engaging in classic female projection.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 20:21

artificial wombs……..

Dude, that technology isn’t happening in the near future.

Plus, when a donor egg + surrogacy costs just $20,000 in India, why bother with something as weird as what you are talking about, which would be very far in the future?

I have no idea why you are so attached to such an improbable and unnecessary idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Fiercely Independent John Nada January 25, 2010 at 20:22

canadian girl January 25, 2010 at 16:07

I asked a couple single straight male friends if they would consider using a surrogate and they looked at me like I was coocoo for cocopuffs. It is completely rediculous to even suggest that men en masse are going to hire Indian women (or chinese, or russian or what ever) as surrogates to avoid having to deal with mothers. It is completely laughable.

***
I agree. As much as I would like to see another viable method to cripple this unjust misandric system, it ain’t happening en masse like that. I’m more concerned with these denials as some variation on, or ancillary effect of IMBRA, as Welmer stated.

Besides, the 2-parent (heterosexual) family is the fundamental unit of any society. Surrogate fatherhood is every bit the selfish and egotistical act we accuse these no-good women of doing.

It’s important to maintain a critical (but objective) eye here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 20:22

Black&German + 1

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
z January 25, 2010 at 20:41

The Fifth Horseman January 25, 2010 at 20:21
artificial wombs……..

Dude, that technology isn’t happening in the near future.

Plus, when a donor egg + surrogacy costs just $20,000 in India, why bother with something as weird as what you are talking about, which would be very far in the future?

I have no idea why you are so attached to such an improbable and unnecessary idea.

FH,
A lot of men would feel guilty about having some poor woman in India having to get pregnant and carry a child for nine months that is theirs. Americans especially would feel guilty about things like this. Its taking advantage of someone else’s poverty. A artifial womb on the other hand puts no strain on another human being who wants to have their own family someday. It could be completely “corporate” and non-personal. One shudders at the thought of some poor woman half a world away having to get pregnant just to put food on the table for her own family, so you can have a kid. Artificial wombs would be much more popular than live insemination of third party females having to be in such a business out of monetary necessity.

Thats just my take on it though, FH. You and I obviously can respectfully disagree on the matter. Have enjoyed some of your writing by the way. Have a great evening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
dragnet January 25, 2010 at 20:44

“It is completely rediculous to even suggest that men en masse are going to hire Indian women (or chinese, or russian or what ever) as surrogates to avoid having to deal with mothers. It is completely laughable.”

I actually agree with this. I think it’s far more likely that men will just stop having children altogether. They’ll opt of out marriage—they already are—and instead of going the surrogacy route, they just won’t reproduce. As their numbers grow, this will be fairly devastating for society—many millions of young-to-middle age men with no children, no reason to invest in society, nothing really to anchor them to their country except taxes and compulsory draft registration. It would definitely be better if men did go the surrogacy route—at least they would have some reason then for investing in the future of our society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Comment_Whatever January 25, 2010 at 20:50

Nobody here is yelling at the right person. And yelling at the wrong person is seldom helpful.

That’s all I have to say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Kulak January 25, 2010 at 20:59

As their numbers grow, this will be fairly devastating for society—many millions of young-to-middle age men with no children, no reason to invest in society, nothing really to anchor them to their country except taxes and compulsory draft registration. It would definitely be better if men did go the surrogacy route—at least they would have some reason then for investing in the future of our society.

Dragnet,

Great points!

I think you may like this article -

The American Spectator : Polygamy and Me

… Monogamy creates a society that has an inherent equality. Every male has the promise of getting a female and every female has the promise of getting a male. It gives everyone a stake in society.

Both high-status men and low-status women are liberated by polygamy. As the old saying has it, men “date down and marry up.” With polygamy you can do both. Meanwhile, the losers are: 1) high-status women, who must share their mate with lower-status females, and 2) low-status men, who don’t get to mate at all.

It’s that last one that causes trouble. Every society and species that practices polygamy is plagued with a “bachelor herd” of unmated males who are very unhappy with their lot.

Competition among males becomes much more violent because the stakes are so high. You either score with a couple of females or you don’t mate at all. Male fruit flies artificially bred to be monogamous have proved to be much less aggressive with other males.

Take away that monogamous contract and your peaceful society disappears with it.

When 18th- and 19th-century Europeans realized polygamy was common in the “backward” portions of the world, they had an easy explanation. Polygamy was a more primitive form of marriage. Advanced societies had evolved out of it. Then they discovered the hunter-gatherers and a different explanation offered itself. Polygamous societies had remained backward precisely because they were polygamous.

Polygamy creates a huge inequality where all the wealth — however little there may be of it — and all the women are concentrated among the more successful men. Exclude enough men and you have the makings of a jihad society. When there aren’t enough women to go around, it’s easy to convince low-status men there are 70 virgins waiting for them in heaven.
Monogamy is not a natural configuration. It’s a human construct. I also happen to think it’s the greatest social achievement in the history of mankind. Advanced societies never would have evolved without it.

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/03/23/polygamy-and-me

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin January 25, 2010 at 21:06

Babies born 3 months premature have a good chance of survival these days (with access to Western medicine). A hundred years ago they would have been considered stillborn/miscarried. Humidified cribs, oxygen feed, IV drip etc substitutes for the womb, at least in the late stage.

Is it reasonable to think there can be no further improvements in this area? Perhaps in a a couple of decades a 3 month old fetus will be viable – doctors will be able to provide oxygen and nutrients that mimic that provided by the womb and the placenta.

Who is going to ban research, and new procedures, that help a 3 month premature baby survive? How about 4 months premature? 5 months?

If the technology continues to develop eventually you get to the point where you can remove an egg/embryo/fetus at ANY stage between conception and birth, and nurture it in an artificial womb until it is fully developed.

Which would have to re-open the debate about abortion, you’d think.

Suppose a woman wants to abort a 10-week old fetus, and meanwhile there’s a Christian couple across town who are happy to pay for a doctor to remove the fetus and transfer it to a mechanical womb, and nuture it to full term?

Sure honey, it’s your body, and you have the right to evict the fetus growing inside you, but the doctor will be sure not to damage the fetus during the procedure. “First, do no harm, right?”

A majority of the population may support “a woman’s right to choose” if there is no way to remove the fetus AND allow it to continue developing. But if a fetus can be safely removed, killing it is just spiteful.

And the hilarious part is – the early you are into a pregancy, the easier it will be to get it out safely. 10 weeks = 2 inches.

At some point I would imagine that artificial womb technology gets to the point where it supports development from conception onwards at a risk level lower than that experienced during a natural pregnancy.

This opens up another ethical can of worms.

If a 10 week fetus has a better chance of survival in an artificial womb than it does inside its mother, does a doctor have a duty to recommend an early removal?

There would be cases where such a recommendation would be obvious – where the mother is in poor health, or is a substance abuser, or has a history of miscarriage.

As the technology gets better, a mother’s refusal of early delivery might in some cases amount to reckless endangerment of the unborn child – for example if she is in really poor health, and the technology is excellent.

The rejoinder it that the fetus has no rights. But it’s still a can of worms.

—————————————————————————————-

Anyway, back on topic.

My point was, surrogacy is a temporary option. Eventually, technology may reach the point where you’d get a healthier baby via the artificial route than you would by using a surrogate.

And you don’t need a male or female donor. Both eggs and sperm can be grown from stem cells, and stem cells can now be created from regular cells.
Scientists actually created sperm from stem cells in 2009.

So down the track, you can create a child from a cheek swab without even needing a second person. Or you could mix genetic material from your relatives in, or from charitable donors (with excellent genes).

Women won’t need men to create a child, and men won’t need women. Many children will only have a single biological parent. Hence only one legal parent. “Single parent family” will take on a new meaning.

A family might consist of a man, his children, nannies and extended family.
Or a woman, her children, nannies and extended family.

Either way, no fights over custody.

Funnily enough, this ends up being a return to the paternal custody rules of the 1800′s. It used to be that a man’s children were his, end of story, and no woman could take them away from him. And wives had no rights to take any property from a man if they left. A man’s home was his castle, indeed.

So after 250 years of change, we end up with a similar situation to a wealthy man in 1800. Your children are yours, you raise them (with some hired help), no woman has any claim to them or to any of your property as a result.

The difference is that woman will have the same option – they can conceive a child without any man’s help and raise it on their own. But they’ll have to stand on their own two feet.

So maybe, instead of the West collapsing as some predict, we’ll develop the technology to give a man his own children. And men can have families that are unambigously theirs, and raise them as they see fit. There may be nannies or girlfriends or mistresses involved, but only as long as the man of the house is pleased with the arrangement.

It’s the final victory of the marketplace – all relationships become commercial. Motherhood becomes a service you purchase – from the hospital for gestation and birth, from nannies ( human or robotic) for babysitting. Sex becomes purely social, separated from reproduction and family arrangements. And probably largely commerical, as well….

A man can hire a doctor, or housekeeper, or nanny or whore as required.
……………….
I just had another thought. You know some guys moan about modern girls whoring round in their twenties, until they are ready to have kids at 35?

Maybe that will become literally true. Prostitution will be legalised or largely tolerated (think craigslist) , and most hot girls will whore out during their younger years, and accumulate a nest egg (or blow it on blow) before having kids after their looks fade and they retire.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
LILGRL January 25, 2010 at 21:20

Sorry to say it guys, but I agree with dragnet — I think it’s far more likely that men will stop having children, rather than go to such extreme lengths to have kids. Especially since the legal issues don’t stop just because you didn’t tie the knot.

Also, anyone who legitimately laments the death of the two-parent household should not be spouting “nannies are cheaper than wives” (though this is true, obviously) mantras.

This article talks about a US citizen giving birth to a surrogate child in India — not the other way around. Basically, the US consulate was saying that the mother who carried the child was not the biological mother, as it was not her egg. By that definition, the child had no “American” blood from the maternal side. I assume that there was “American” blood from the paternal side, and citizenship was thus easily gained (only one parent needs to be American for you to gain such easy entryway into the system). Logically, it would follow that a child born to a non-US surrogate mother, but still with “American” blood (from the father’s side, or even both sides), would have no problem gaining American citizenship.

Yes, it’s fine to extrapolate — but please remember that what you are doing is extrapolating.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
ElectricAngel January 25, 2010 at 21:21

Well, let’s not pick too much on Canadian girl. I have experience of one man with two children who got divorced there: she got fat and bitchy, he started having an Internet affair. He was quite wealthy; I thought for certain that he’d lose half and pay CS. It’s apparently a little different in Canada (Ontario) than the US, as his substantial assets (no pre-nup, if such even exists there) were not attached; he does not pay much in child support. She moved the kids to Quebec, and I believe he pays nothing; I believe he misses the kids, a lot, but not at the cost of dealing with his ex over the current g/f. He did not seem to care to see the kids during the separation, either. Lessons: Canada’s not as bad yet as the US for divorcing men, and not all fathers are like that!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 25, 2010 at 21:33

Basically, the US consulate was saying that the mother who carried the child was not the biological mother, as it was not her egg. By that definition, the child had no “American” blood from the maternal side.

-LILGRL

Sorry, LIL, but that doesn’t make any sense. The fact that the surrogate was not American has nothing to do with whether the donor of the egg was or not, and therefore the child could be a “full-blooded” American. Also, that was only one example mentioned in the article. Note that the policy applies to all ART procedures.

Whatever the case, if the egg is donated, what does it matter what the nationality of the donor is?

Do the children of Danish guys who masturbate into a cup for aging American spinsters automatically get Danish citizenship?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
LILGRL January 25, 2010 at 22:54

Sorry, LIL, but that doesn’t make any sense.

I didn’t say it made sense. I think it makes sense either. I’m just citing the article.

The fact that the surrogate was not American has nothing to do with whether the donor of the egg was or not, and therefore the child could be a “full-blooded” American.

In the article, the surrogate was American, or am I misreading that?

Also, that was only one example mentioned in the article. Note that the policy applies to all ART procedures.

Yes, this was only one example mentioned in the article. I’ll admit that I didn’t go hunting for more info — I just read the article cited. However, my impression from the article was that this is an issue that has arisen for American (and, apparently German) surrogate mothers bearing children and attempting to gain citizenship for said children, not Indian surrogate mothers bearing children and attempting to gain non-Indian citizenship for said children.

Whatever the case, if the egg is donated, what does it matter what the nationality of the donor is?

Oh, I agree with this.

That said, the ART thing may seem new and shiny to you guys, but it has always been the case that a child born outside of the US to parents who were not married (the same law applies to women who go to a sperm bank outside of the US) is treated as such. The question you should be asking (and some people on here are) is “why does the US make it so hard for people to gain legitimate citizenship for their children, yet ignore the border-jumpers.” That said, it’s really not that hard to get citizenship for your kids if you’re an American citizen. We should all try it some time! And yeah, I do know that of which I speak.

Re: Danish citizenship — I know this was tongue-in-cheek but do remember the difference between America and um, every other country in the world — a “full-blooded” American doesn’t really exist. On the one hand, it’s understandable that they thus protect American citizenship (by making it, uh, really hard to just “get”)…on the other hand, there’s the whole Mexican thing. No offense to the Mexicans.

I like burritos. (SRSLY, I’ve been dreaming about Chipotle all day long…)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Welmer January 26, 2010 at 00:45

In the article, the surrogate was American, or am I misreading that?

OK, now I see the problem. Surrogate implies going through pregnancy for someone else, right? But in this case the American woman was going through the pregnancy for her adopted child, so she wasn’t a surrogate per se, but she was using donor eggs and not genetically related to the baby. But who was the donor? Does anyone know?

Gah, convoluted stuff.

Anyway, you’re saying that a man could easily have a child conceived by a donor egg, grown in a surrogate, and then bring the baby back with him without any legal trouble?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sharpcool January 26, 2010 at 00:46

Wapiti:


But remember that said visits are on her terms, on her schedule, and undoubtedly she makes it so painful, so demeaning that he is sorely tempted to walk away. It’s called visitation for a reason.

Yep. This little point gets swept under the rug by many women. They can be masters of psychological abuse. But it’s more difficult to see than physical abuse so they get away with it, and they never, ever, admit to this abuse.

I realized this after a long relationship with this girl when I was still young and naive (last week, j/k). I felt like I was in a constant chess game, and I foolishly tried to match wits with her, but I didn’t stand a chance against her psychological abuse mastery combined with her sexual power. Was I dating a girl or Sun-Tzu?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 26, 2010 at 01:38

Defininetly NOT Sun Tzu, abuse is a short term feelgood that will inevitably end in misery. I get what you’re saying, and “War is Deception” but still… even though a great “chess” player, this girl is a fool.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 02:09

I do want kids. Surrogate and nanny or a non-western wife is my plan. GM is correct about saving money. Work, save, and avoid LTR in your twenties and you will have all the finances you need to do whatever the hell you want. It can be done in six years at minimum wage. Discipline young men. If you need sex that bad budget for whores, good ones can be had relativly cheap.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad January 26, 2010 at 02:10

Surogates, and the single dad household…like all inventions, …”before its fact…it’s, fiction first”…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
sabril January 26, 2010 at 04:26

I could see single male surrogacy catching on. The main objections I see are that (1) it’s kinda weird; (2) who will watch the child; and (3) aren’t children better off with a mother?

As for (1) and (3), essentially those same objections used to be in place for single motherhood. And yet single motherhood is widely accepted now. (2) can be solved with money.

At the same time, the potential advantages are tremendous. For example, it would be awesome to be able to go on a date now and then without having to deal with some angry wife who can cause a world of problems for both father and children. Financial, psychological, and legal problems.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
LILGRL January 26, 2010 at 05:14

OK, now I see the problem. Surrogate implies going through pregnancy for someone else, right? But in this case the American woman was going through the pregnancy for her adopted child, so she wasn’t a surrogate per se, but she was using donor eggs and not genetically related to the baby. But who was the donor? Does anyone know?

Gah, convoluted stuff.

No, she was a surrogate. I’m just saying she was American.

Anyway, you’re saying that a man could easily have a child conceived by a donor egg, grown in a surrogate, and then bring the baby back with him without any legal trouble?

I’m not saying this, though he would face the same “legal trouble” as a single woman going abroad and getting knocked up (unmarried), and having the baby abroad and then coming back. Or getting knocked up from a sperm bank. The point is really more that 1) it’s not so much spite against males as it is “spite” against non-citizens and 2) if the child is a legal child of an American citizen, you’re pretty much guaranteed citizenship — but depending on the circumstances, it may be a lil harder/longer than anticipated. But it’s gonna happen. In this article, the bigger issue for the surrogate mother was that she was not listed as the birth mother and the child gained citizenship through the father’s connection only. As for the German couple, well, I don’t know the laws surrounding German citizenship.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 05:26

German citizenship is jus soli and jus sanguines same as stateside

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
A VICTIM January 26, 2010 at 05:44

A know of a SINGLE PARENT DAD with, at last count, 7 children! All by surrogate. And yes he gets constantly hassled by all the “WIMMIN” that are mad that he did not have the little “Ransom notes” with them. Hey, let’s face it, the men are getting smarter and the wimmin are losing. This loss may be gradual but it is starting. Soon enough the wimmin will once again have to have personalities, morals, and do their best to be good human beings if they are interested in being a lifelong partner and have a family with a like, loving caring man!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 06:10

I mentioned it to one woman I know. She laughed, then when she saw I was serious and had the requisit resources she cried. Haven’t talked to her since

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
AfOR January 26, 2010 at 06:43

Talk to a farmer.

The whole AI (artificial insemination) thing is old hat, decades old hat, I can order frozen semen from any farm breed I like FedExed anywhere on the planet.

Eggs / Ovum (suurogacy) is more challenging, but again, talk to a farmer, surrogacy (implantation of a fertilised ovum) is becoming more commonplace every year.

Vat gestation is a big leap, there are people talking now, and experimenting now, with cross species surrogacy, fertilised goat ovum implanted in a sheep.

People have also been experimenting with more wacky stuff, growing human ears for surgical replacement surgery, but on a mouse.

Pigs to make human insulin is old hat.

Genetically modified specially bred pigs to carry fertilised human ovum to term is a lot closer than a vat baby, a lot closer than you may think.

Getting human ovum to fertilise isn’t much of a challenge either, you can harvest 500 from every aborted late term female fetus.

This is all 2010 AD technology.

Sure, it may not be legal in Podunk, USA, so what, a family of 4 going to Disneyland will cost the same as travelling abroad to have the procedure done there.

The womb is not the Holy Grail, every foetus is biologically alien from the female host (and I use the term host advisedly) and the main job of the womb is to feed nutrients while suppressing crossover of immune response.

Every living organ transplant patient takes drugs to suppress immune response, so that isn’t a barrier for a 9 month gestation either.

There is not yet the social or political will to address these issues, they are still pretty much in the realms of scientific research, or simply “do not count” because it is being done with non-human creatures.

But “vat womb” boy is right, we are at most 20 years away from the point where anyone with sufficient wealth can purchase, somewhere on the planet, a biological construct that will do the duty of the female human womb for 9 months, while the fertilised ovum of their choice goes to term.

Want to make it happen sooner?

Just encourage the women to get on board… no more painful delivery, no more morning sickness, no more bone calcium depletion, no more stretch marks, get stoned / drunk as much as you like.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
SteveinTX January 26, 2010 at 07:00

@LilGirl

Also, anyone who legitimately laments the death of the two-parent household should not be spouting “nannies are cheaper than wives” (though this is true, obviously) mantras.

Further on your extrapolation: why is your should more valuable than any one elses should?

The playing field has already been laid out. Single father with nanny is much better for the children and civilization than single mother with government.
Additionally, if single father with nanny were to reach critical mass (whatever percentage that is), it forces changes in wannabe wives actions.

If women then want to become part of a two-parent family, they will have to drop the current attitude and legal/government support that allows the attitude.

When the rules and actions are sufficiently changed to eliminate the all for her/none for him nature of a two parent family, the two-parent family model can resume.

Sounds like a pretty good “should” to me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Rebel January 26, 2010 at 07:06

@Canadian girl
“It is completely laughable.”

Laughable?

Isn’t that what they said about the possibility of flying airplanes?
Still…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 10:28

Holy shit.
Indian chicks as surrogates.
And to think I once thought
they were only good for
tech support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
piercedhead January 26, 2010 at 11:42

Additionally, if single father with nanny were to reach critical mass (whatever percentage that is), it forces changes in wannabe wives actions.

It would also force fundamental changes in political calculations, and alter government from the path it is currently on. ‘The future is female’ would be dead in its tracks.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 12:17

”””””’And you don’t need a male or female donor. Both eggs and sperm can be grown from stem cells, and stem cells can now be created from regular cells.
Scientists actually created sperm from stem cells in 2009.

So down the track, you can create a child from a cheek swab without even needing a second person. Or you could mix genetic material from your relatives in, or from charitable donors (with excellent genes).

””””””\
cool stuff so really we gonna have jurasic park.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad January 26, 2010 at 18:12

A True return of males to the drivers seat, this would be ! An Un-bride-led Game changer ! As Sing-Dad, globe trotter, with my kid being raised by disposable nanny services, abroad, but when local,like everyone,.the use of friends and/or extended family for intimate family contact moments.education should be Priviate tutors/ priviate schooled or Home schooled or for socializationing purposes, do a blend of each, to minimize the possibility of any government intrudion, into your role as SingDad.This model could also serve as a bases for concept expasion. a group of middle income potential SingDads could quite effectivly pool tremendous resorces both economically and logistically to pull off incrediable family oriented turn about in a decade or two.this would force the courts to bargin themselves out of societies’s misandric convulusions and rebirth the nation as a whole….let the women choose death…as long as men could choose life….sounds reasonable, and dooable to me…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
iron clad January 26, 2010 at 18:24

Sorry for the lexiconical errors in preceeding post. I haven’t a spell check in my g1 mobile phone and it tends to send, drafts on whim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
piercedhead January 26, 2010 at 19:10

I think most men 40 and up would probably not be able to imagine such a reality for themselves, conditioned as we were from birth to expect to marry and have children by a woman. But for younger men – especially those still in their teens – who haven’t formed similar conceptions about how families are ‘meant to be’, the idea of outsourcing child conception, gestation and infant mothering will be no more unnatural than two men getting married and adopting, or lesbians utilizing sperm banks. Had anyone suggested the latter in 1970, they would have been universally dismissed as total loons.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
newly divorced January 26, 2010 at 19:25

Every young rich guy I know (30′s or earlier) has talked about this option lately. For a guy that wants kids, this is so much better than marriage that there is no comparison.

No wonder American women/divorce lawyers are worried. They could lose the “best” victims of the marriage/child support racket.

I’m sure they will try to outlaw this in some way as it “exploits” poor Indian women or something like that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 27, 2010 at 00:32

Indeed, NewlyDiv’d, as I believe the main “argument” for IMBRA was to “protect” “mail order brides” from those awful, nasty, abusive American Men.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
R. Steve September 12, 2010 at 22:48

I absolutely agree wth “:SteveinTX:”

I too feel that it would be a Pretty-Sweet-Deal to have kids through Surrogates than having kids wth these Americal Feminazis who would not only take away our kids but also all our money and house !!!!

Perhaps we can plan on having kids wth these American Ladies once the FEMINISM SHIT COME TO AN END ever at-all that is..if it ends!!!

Its a cheap deal to me to have kids through such Surrogates, and to be able to live with them and see them grow rather than waiting for court permissions and that too we would still only get to SEE THEM ON WEEKENDS OR ONLY FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS????!!!

-THE SYSTEMS HERE IS ALREDY SICK AND TO TACKLE IT, LOOKS LIKE WE WILL HAVE TO GET LITTLE TOO.
- TIME FOR FEMINAZIS TO LEARN A LESSON.
-ON WAY TO WORK THIS OUT GOODBLUCK TO REST OF MY BROTHERS AS WELL !!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: