We can ask a moral question without being a cesspool. I am a woman with a PhD and not some random idiot. Which I already have been called on this thread. Stop it. Not every discussion you dislike is a forbidden one.
Sure, but there is a time and a place. And this isn't it. You know nothing about Emma Coburn, and this thread is about her and her new baby. Take your moralizing elsewhere. A new thread if you must.
More broadly (beyond just you), this thread is a great example of the lowest of the low of Let's Run. Right-wing lunatics (e.g., Glitter Bomb) always out in force to politicize any and all topics. The sniping and inappropriate comments. Etc, etc, etc.
My favorite is the complete idiot who has the gall to ask inappropriate questions on Emma's IG and then comes on here to complain that he/she was blocked. Can't make this stuff up. It's like an awkward, cringe comedy sketch.
You obviously haven't read my comments in this thread because if you had, you would have seen that I am defending her right to have a surrogate. You may be correct in describing my political theory as "right," but its not necessarily what I advocate for in application. I advocate for the non aggression principle paired with absolute freedom. What I consider "lunacy" is using force to shove whatever beliefs you have on someone else. For instance, I personally believe homosexuality is weird and gross, but I would never advocate imposing law that forces people from partaking in that activity. I also find abortion abhorrent, though being an extremely complicated issue, I with some degree of regret don't see a place for government regulation. Same goes for this. I think surrogacy is weird, but I believe she has the right to do it, unless through force she made the surrogate do it, which I'm assuming she didn't.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
One could argue that any job involving manual labor is a form of body commodification. Would anyone do custodial work if they were qualified for better jobs?
Being pregnant for a living isn’t that bad at all. Great money and lots of free time. A surrogate could literally spend her time reading, watching tv, or chatting on this website while getting paid for it. I’m actually kind of jealous.
I agree with you. What happened to my body my choice? If a woman wants to be a surrogate, she should be allowed to do so. Government should not step in and interfere with voluntary exchanges between citizens. Personally, I do think that it is weird, but I shouldn't be able to force my beliefs onto others, especially if nobody is being forced/harmed.
You've stumbled on a division within feminism.
On one hand you have so-called "sex-negative" feminism which sees women as primarily exploited by their reproductive capacity and sexuality so therefore tends to be anti-surrogacy, anti-sex work and anti-pornography (and often usually anti-trans).
On the other hand you have sex-positive feminism which stresses that women must have autonomy and are usually accepting of surrogacy, sex work and pornography and want to expand the rights of women engaged in these practices rather than abolishing them.
We can ask a moral question without being a cesspool. I am a woman with a PhD and not some random idiot. Which I already have been called on this thread. Stop it. Not every discussion you dislike is a forbidden one.
Sure, but there is a time and a place. And this isn't it. You know nothing about Emma Coburn, and this thread is about her and her new baby. Take your moralizing elsewhere. A new thread if you must.
More broadly (beyond just you), this thread is a great example of the lowest of the low of Let's Run. Right-wing lunatics (e.g., Glitter Bomb) always out in force to politicize any and all topics. The sniping and inappropriate comments. Etc, etc, etc.
My favorite is the complete idiot who has the gall to ask inappropriate questions on Emma's IG and then comes on here to complain that he/she was blocked. Can't make this stuff up. It's like an awkward, cringe comedy sketch.
None of these are inappropriate questions. Emma Coburn doesn't have to read this thread, and if I were her, I would not. Asking ethical questions is not moralizing. There are entire academic fields, such as moral philosophy and medical ethics, that pose these questions. If we can't talk about this stuff in light of a public figure disclosing that she had a baby via surrogacy, then we can never discuss them.
Few things are more frustrating than having a reasoned debate about a subject and being accused of moralizing by people who are, themselves, moralizing.
I agree with you. What happened to my body my choice? If a woman wants to be a surrogate, she should be allowed to do so. Government should not step in and interfere with voluntary exchanges between citizens. Personally, I do think that it is weird, but I shouldn't be able to force my beliefs onto others, especially if nobody is being forced/harmed.
You've stumbled on a division within feminism.
On one hand you have so-called "sex-negative" feminism which sees women as primarily exploited by their reproductive capacity and sexuality so therefore tends to be anti-surrogacy, anti-sex work and anti-pornography (and often usually anti-trans).
On the other hand you have sex-positive feminism which stresses that women must have autonomy and are usually accepting of surrogacy, sex work and pornography and want to expand the rights of women engaged in these practices rather than abolishing them.
On one hand you have so-called "sex-negative" feminism which sees women as primarily exploited by their reproductive capacity and sexuality so therefore tends to be anti-surrogacy, anti-sex work and anti-pornography (and often usually anti-trans).
On the other hand you have sex-positive feminism which stresses that women must have autonomy and are usually accepting of surrogacy, sex work and pornography and want to expand the rights of women engaged in these practices rather than abolishing them.
Great summary
Not really because there are far more factions of feminism than that. Also, the so-called "sex-negative" feminists are actually radical feminists, and my impression is not that they are not anti-trans. They are fine with men identifying as women, but they don't think others should have to agree or take on their concerns under the banner of feminism. If anything, they're anti-male.
Not really because there are far more factions of feminism than that. Also, the so-called "sex-negative" feminists are actually radical feminists, and my impression is not that they are not anti-trans. They are fine with men identifying as women, but they don't think others should have to agree or take on their concerns under the banner of feminism. If anything, they're anti-male.
"Good point" would have been better than "great summary." You have a good point as well.
The most important thing for the health of a child is having a loving and supportive family that provides good care. We have ample evidence to know that a child's parent(s) or guardian(s) doesn't need to be biological for the child to thrive. Healthy and happy families come in many forms.
Moreover, we know that being raised by one's biological parents is far from a guarantee that a child will turn out to be healthy and happy.
Yes, but that's not the question here. Kids are raised by non-birth and genetic parents all the time, but it's typically not planned prior to conception. Kids survive all sorts of stressors, but that doesn't mean we should intentionally create that stressor unless we have a compelling reason to do so. Surrogacy means knowingly creating that stressor.
The proper comparison here is between babies matched on all factors except for separation from the gestational mother at birth.
Emma's baby didn't look stressed in that video. I believe the intentionality that's required for surrogacy is a positive thing. It means that the parents who are caring for the baby after birth put a lot of time, thought, and planning into the conception. It shows they really want the baby, and they are probably prepared to give that baby the love and care that the baby needs.
Have you ever considered why its illegal in most of the world? No seriously think of it. This is just another way of the rich exploiting poor women. I do not need to write an opinion piece on it because the consensus on this is well established but in the US no one cares. Even the social justice crowd seems fine because it benefits the rich.
Its illegal to sell parts of your bodies e.g. for Organ donation. Surrogacy and pregnancy in general are some of the highest risk to die for women. No one that is not financially desperate would ever take that risk on. So its just exploiting women from poor background even more so.
I'm not even for banning it completely. But it needs to be strictly regulated and only for medical reasons of absolute infertility.
Just curious...but how do "medical reasons of absolute infertility" change the moral calculus of surrogacy? One is still separating a child from their birth mother. A financial transaction for a human being is still taking place. The birthing woman is still taking on physical risk and opening themselves to potential exploitation.
I am slightly curious how a pro runner affords a surrogate.
In the same way we're all "curious" how so many pro runners don't have day jobs? As in, we understand that the pro ranks of this sport in the US are for people who are sponsored from birth, no matter what times they run?
Emma comes from a very wealthy family, plus she has made good money being a sponsored, multiple world and Oly medalist.
It’s like a bunch of basement dwellers don’t know what it takes to be successful.
I can't tell what you are saying. What do you mean by "successful"?
Are you saying that she made enough during her running career that it is financially possible (let alone reasonable) to afford IVF and start a family with a single coaching salary coming in?
Have you ever considered why its illegal in most of the world? No seriously think of it. This is just another way of the rich exploiting poor women. I do not need to write an opinion piece on it because the consensus on this is well established but in the US no one cares. Even the social justice crowd seems fine because it benefits the rich.
Its illegal to sell parts of your bodies e.g. for Organ donation. Surrogacy and pregnancy in general are some of the highest risk to die for women. No one that is not financially desperate would ever take that risk on. So its just exploiting women from poor background even more so.
I'm not even for banning it completely. But it needs to be strictly regulated and only for medical reasons of absolute infertility.
I really am happy for Emma Coburn, but I completely agree that this is ethically dicey territory and needs more discussion.
Modern society is really struggling to square equality and difference when it comes to sex. Wealthier people can sustain the fiction that embodied sex differences don't matter by offloading reproductive labor and childrearing onto poorer women. This includes couples facing infertility or health issues that make pregnancy dangerous, those who don't want to interrupt a career, and gay men who cannot have a child outiside of adoption or surrogacy. In many of these cases, we see that "equality" is available to people with money and that it involves the commodification of the female body. And, this is occuring in which some radical but influential people are arguing that being female has nothing to do with the body.
I recognize that some women are not coerced into commodifying their bodies, but it's probably rare for a women to put a price tag on sex or her childbearing capacity if she is completely healthy and financially stable.
So, I am ambivalent. I believe in bodily autonomy, but I have serious questions about some forms of body commodification. Pregnancy and childbirth are particularly dicey becuase it involves a fetus/baby who cannot yet weigh in on the decision but will experience the consequences (both positive and negative) of these policies.
Anyone who bows before the altar of equality will forever be unhappy and conflicted. The sooner you accept that different people are born into different realities, that being the most natural thing in the world, the better off you will be.
She is technically raising a child which may or may not be the genetic offspring of her and Bosshard. Someday we may be able to determine nature versus nurture when we watch the 2042 Niwot XC team which by then will be coached by RItz after he gets fired by ON.
I don't have an issue with her using a surrogate, for whatever reason, but I do wish she acknowledged the privilege that comes with being able to pay $100k+ for a surrogate. The vast majority of women don't have that luxury.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.