User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Hollydays's avatar

No. Just no, on any and all of this _playing God for money_. That is what it is.

I have tremendous compassion for couples who cannot have their own biological babies through their own bodies, but there are so many babies that need to be adopted. Do that instead!

The other distasteful thing in this whole idea is, as so many before me said, you don't find the rich doing this for the poor. For that matter, how many rich to you know who are helping the poor who haven't been able to properly feed or clothe the children they've got, or prevent themselves having children they don't want or can't afford? So, in my humble view, for the rich this is pure selfishness.

Expand full comment
Mara U.'s avatar

There actually aren’t so many babies that need to be adopted - at least, not domestically. People wait on lists for years without ever getting a baby. Because the foster care system tries to reunite families, babies in foster care typically aren’t babies by the time they’re available for adoption (if they ever are).

Most young women with unplanned pregnancies aren’t interested in adoption.

Expand full comment
Hollydays's avatar

Thanks for the additional information.

Expand full comment