|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Baby Gammy
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.
Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.
But is it that the aspect of the process that is making some people so uncomfortable? When married couples use artificial insemination to conceive to deal with infertility, is it still "grotesque"?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
art dunce
Shipmate
# 9258
|
Posted
This made their taking the girl and leaving the boys even creepier.
--------------------
Ego is not your amigo.
Posts: 1283 | From: in the studio | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Very much so and from the link above, and as has been reported elsewhere
quote:
After having denied knowing that Gammy even existed, Mr Farnell and his wife now appear to have changed their story.
A family friend has told their local newspaper, the Bunbury Mail, that the parents knew of Gammy and his congenital heart condition, but left him behind in Thailand because doctors said he would not survive.
I understand a statement to similar effect was made through a lawyer on behalf of the couple. This case gets more and more sordid and sinister all the time.
Perhaps in the most bizzare way, this is a situation of all things working for good, twins conceived, disabled one left behind, publicity means Gammy gets financially looked after by donors and perhaps his sister will be protected too. I'd like to think so.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.
I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.
Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.
Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.
surrogate
ˈsʌrəgət/
noun: surrogate; plural noun: surrogates
a substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office.
Latin surrogatus, past participle of surrogare to choose in place of another, substitute, from sub- + rogare to ask
In this, the standard meaning of the word, Hagar most certainly was a surrogate. She was deputising for Sarai.
Also, it is not exactly unheard of for modern surrogacies, achieved without any icky sex taking place between the parties to the agreement, to utilise artificial insemination rather than embyro implantation - meaning that the 'substitute' is in exactly the same space, biologically speaking, as Hagar.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Now Sarai, Abram’s wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian slave named Hagar; so she said to Abram, “The Lord has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.”
Are you citing that on the basis that 'it's in the Bible; so it must be a good thing'? If so, I would not accept that exegesis. To me, it is clear that for a range of reasons, God is not commending this.
I suspect that anoesis is pointing out that it's not a new practice. Surrogacy is an ancient practice so I'm a bit puzzled as to why you mention people of your age not having thought it was possible until recently.
Surrogacy is most definitely not an ancient practice. Surrogacy involves a couple donating an egg and sperm the egg is fertilised and then implanted into a third women. This is biologically quite different from ancient practices of polygamy, adoption, "natural" sons and daughters, men raising "nieces and nephews" and all the other complicated consequences of immorality as it has been described over time.
Abram impregnated Hagar and she bore their child,- it was Hagar and Abram's kid, not Abram and Sarah's bioloical child quite a different thing (even though the intent and motivation was probably the same) from surrogacy.
Maybe a geographical difference here, but surrogacy is not limited to using a couple's fertilised egg in a third party uterus - what Hagar and Abram did was surrogacy. Probably the less common way for different-gender couples now, but is still used for gay male couples all the time and is still always called surrogacy.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I suppose it is possible to expand or narrow a definition. Surrogacy does have a broad meaning I agree but at least in certain contexts, including the case being discussed here, surrogacy refers to the implantation of an embryo into a third woman. Perhaps reproductive technology has moved along more quickly than our language has developed simple words to describe and differntiate.
It is this specific version of surrogacy that I believe Enoch was referring to when he said he found it grotesque and that it was only recently available. Now you might disagree with his conclusions but the facts that it's only recently available is true.
I guess I find the idea of impregnating a slave girl who was in no position to say "no" grotesque, but that was par for the course in those days as were a great many other grotesque practices, such as human sacrifice.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
This story just gets worse and worse.
Sydney Morning Herald
Unfortunately I can't find the link now but there was another story with a source at the surrogacy agency, who said that the doctors told them the boy only had days to live, and that the surrogate volunteered to keep him for what they all thought would be a very short life.
So in sum:
- a convicted pedophile would never be approved for adoption so pursued international surrogacy
- an unregulated surrogacy industry in Thailand means no background checks were done on the prospective parents
- misdiagnosis by doctors about the child's health outcomes
- an apparent agreement to leave behind a child that should never have been allowed to be made in the first place - how can you "agree" to this?
I would support any legal measures that would prevent citizens of wealthy countries from engaging in these practices period. This case highlights what happens when we are trading babies and women's bodies in poor countries - and how wealthy couples can exploit the system to get around the laws in their home countries. It's sickening.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Evangeline, thank you. I agree.
Perhaps I'd better explain something else. IMHO, if your immediate reaction to something or someone is unease, distaste, it or them is a bit creepy, you must not rely on that. Feelings can mislead. They can even be wrong. But likewise, you shouldn't ignore it. Your feelings might be telling you something.
Sometimes, you find that your immediate reaction was irrational or unjustified, i.e. wrong. A person one has taken against just has the misfortune of looking a bit like a teacher you did not like at school. But if after looking into something, you still feel it or they aren't quite right, even if there might be fully rational reasons that other people find persuasive but you don't, IMHO you should stick with your original view. That's basically still how I feel about surrogacy.
On the other forms of 'surrogacy' that we aren't talking about here, as Evangeline has said, the story of Abraham and Hagar is grotesque. It doesn't contain anything that would commend the practice. Most, or all, of such forms would historically have involved adultery, and these days involve people doing distasteful things with pipettes.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Evangeline, thank you. I agree.
Perhaps I'd better explain something else. IMHO, if your immediate reaction to something or someone is unease, distaste, it or them is a bit creepy, you must not rely on that. Feelings can mislead. They can even be wrong. But likewise, you shouldn't ignore it. Your feelings might be telling you something.
Sometimes, you find that your immediate reaction was irrational or unjustified, i.e. wrong. A person one has taken against just has the misfortune of looking a bit like a teacher you did not like at school. But if after looking into something, you still feel it or they aren't quite right, even if there might be fully rational reasons that other people find persuasive but you don't, IMHO you should stick with your original view. That's basically still how I feel about surrogacy.
On the other forms of 'surrogacy' that we aren't talking about here, as Evangeline has said, the story of Abraham and Hagar is grotesque. It doesn't contain anything that would commend the practice. Most, or all, of such forms would historically have involved adultery, and these days involve people doing distasteful things with pipettes.
But why do you feel this way? Do you feel the same about IVF? It's just another way of bringing hope and joy to infertile and gay couples. It has its risks and downsides but so does adoption - and adoption for money happens too.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I suppose it is possible to expand or narrow a definition. Surrogacy does have a broad meaning I agree but at least in certain contexts, including the case being discussed here, surrogacy refers to the implantation of an embryo into a third woman. Perhaps reproductive technology has moved along more quickly than our language has developed simple words to describe and differntiate.
It is this specific version of surrogacy that I believe Enoch was referring to when he said he found it grotesque and that it was only recently available. Now you might disagree with his conclusions but the facts that it's only recently available is true.
I guess I find the idea of impregnating a slave girl who was in no position to say "no" grotesque, but that was par for the course in those days as were a great many other grotesque practices, such as human sacrifice.
Second woman, not third woman, surely? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
LOL confused ordinals, a third person as in not part of the couple but yeah I guess it's the second woman although that has different connotations again.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
This story just gets worse and worse.
Sydney Morning Herald
Unfortunately I can't find the link now but there was another story with a source at the surrogacy agency, who said that the doctors told them the boy only had days to live, and that the surrogate volunteered to keep him for what they all thought would be a very short life.
So in sum:
- a convicted pedophile would never be approved for adoption so pursued international surrogacy
- an unregulated surrogacy industry in Thailand means no background checks were done on the prospective parents
- misdiagnosis by doctors about the child's health outcomes
- an apparent agreement to leave behind a child that should never have been allowed to be made in the first place - how can you "agree" to this?
I would support any legal measures that would prevent citizens of wealthy countries from engaging in these practices period. This case highlights what happens when we are trading babies and women's bodies in poor countries - and how wealthy couples can exploit the system to get around the laws in their home countries. It's sickening.
I agree if you mean international surrogacy. Well-regulated, altruistic surrogacy (like in the UK) is a good thing IMO but I do agree that this situation is appalling and should never have been allowed.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Seekingsister--It gets worse still: the wife of the convicted paedophile turns out to be a recent mail-order bride from an agency in China.
This whole scenario is a parade of red flags to those familiar with the modus operandi of child sexual offenders. I hope that the girl twin gets taken into care pronto.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Seekingsister--It gets worse still: the wife of the convicted paedophile turns out to be a recent mail-order bride from an agency in China.
This whole scenario is a parade of red flags to those familiar with the modus operandi of child sexual offenders. I hope that the girl twin gets taken into care pronto.
Gosh yes, the internet has dug this up now:
Farnell/Li Match Profile
The reports say he was convicted and jailed in the 1990s.
[deleted potentially libelous material]
[ 06. August 2014, 14:34: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
IIRC, surrogacy for money is illegal in the UK. Only medical costs are paid for, if necessary, but is otherwise not done for money.
IIRC, there are ways of getting round that; one being that the surrogate mother keeps a diary of her pregnancy, for which she is paid several £1,000. (Admittedly this is based on something I read several years ago, so might no longer be true.)
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Admin Note
Please avoid speculation about potential illegal activities on the part of Mr Farnell (or, anyone else for that matter), or his motives. There's enough that can be discussed without attracting the attention of lawyers.
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Like all the other ethical hot potatoes, it seems to me that the problems escalate when money changes hands and we then have an ethical/ moral nightmare like this one.
No-one cares about integrity, possible abuse, exploitation when large amounts of money seem possible- any agency needs to run regular integrity checks on itself if it really wants to try to aspire to some level of decency.The same probably applies to most of us as individuals.
Also, the temptation for those trapped in poverty to generate some income leads them into the web of financial exploitation at the hands of others' greed.
I honestly think that he only way to keep things from becoming dodgy as regards surrogacy is if it is, as has been said above, undertaken as an act of love. And I don't think everyone could do it unscathed either.
I knew a woman who having had two children of her own then carried the triplets of her best friend who had lost her womb to cancer. What an act of love!
The case under discussion here beggars belief as each new blow to good practice and common decency appears to be uncovered.
--------------------
"It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
Whilst we could discuss the finely nuanced ethical dilemmas of surrogacy in general, I stand by the position in my first post that there is no moral quagmire here, just blatant immorality that now looks evil. I think you're all doing a disservice to surrogacy in general to make this case of evil the defining point of surrogacy. It's a bit like criticising all marriages because there is domestic violence in some.
This Canberra Times article contains the very telling final line, that RSPCA officers visited the Farnell home quote:
on Wednesday and removed the family dog, who had been left barking from a side gate for three days.
Sadly, child protection officers also visited the home but the door wasn't answered and so far they have been unable to located the Farnells, so the dog is saved but the child not. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
