Freedom to buy and sell eggs, sperm and surrogacy services.

[-1=e^ipi]

Finally, some good news from the federal government. Hopefully they legalize it all (along with drugs and prostitution) to give people more freedom and get the government out of our pants (or skirts).

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-says-it-s-time-for-canada-to-debate-decriminalizing-fees-for-surrogate-moms-1.4605201

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-it-s-time-to-talk-about-lifting-ban-on-paying-sperm-egg-donors-1.3871380

Edited April 5, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[AngusThermopyle]

Although I'm not against this, in fact I think surrogates should be paid, I do think it's a very minor issue. There are a great many things far more important than this that are not being addressed, but should be. This government seems to change the channel from what's important to trivial issues on a regular basis. Given that it affected maybe 700 Canadians last year I don't think this should be a priority for our government. Also interesting is the phrasing that Trudeau used. He said.

"The government, he said, wants to listen and show respect for all views to "move forward appropriately."

To me that sounds like it's a done deal and any debate will just be window dressing.

[-1=e^ipi]

56 minutes ago, AngusThermopyle said:

To me that sounds like it's a done deal and any debate will just be window dressing.

 

I doubt it. There are some feminists that view legalizing this as 'exploiting women'. As a result Trudeau is personally conflicted and doesn't fully support getting the government out of our pants.

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

As a result Trudeau is personally conflicted and doesn't fully support getting the government out of our pants.

I don't know that there are even 'sides' to this issue.

 

1 hour ago, AngusThermopyle said:

Although I'm not against this, in fact I think surrogates should be paid, I do think it's a very minor issue. There are a great many things far more important than this that are not being addressed, but should be. This government seems to change the channel from what's important to trivial issues on a regular basis. Given that it affected maybe 700 Canadians last year I don't think this should be a priority for our government. 

Agreed.

[Guest]

22 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

 

I doubt it. There are some feminists that view legalizing this as 'exploiting women'. As a result Trudeau is personally conflicted and doesn't fully support getting the government out of our pants.

Everyone who works for someone else is being exploited.  It comes down to whether or not they are okay with it.

If a surrogate agrees to do a job, either for pay, or for nothing, as might be the case if the eventual parent is a family member or a friend, then that is her choice.  I heard somewhere that feminists were pro-choice, so it should be okay.

[Michael Hardner]

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Everyone who works for someone else is being exploited.  It comes down to whether or not they are okay with it.

And whether everybody else is or not, don't forget.

 

10 hours ago, bcsapper said:

If a surrogate agrees to do a job, either for pay, or for nothing, as might be the case if the eventual parent is a family member or a friend, then that is her choice.  I heard somewhere that feminists were pro-choice, so it should be okay.

For pay vs. for a family member is a completely different story.  Framing it as "I have a right to do what I want for a living" is over simplification.  

[Penderyn]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

And whether everybody else is or not, don't forget.

 

For pay vs. for a family member is a completely different story.  Framing it as "I have a right to do what I want for a living" is over simplification.  

It seems to me criminal in the extreme to act as an accomplice in launching anyone into a life under late capitalism.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

And whether everybody else is or not, don't forget.

 

For pay vs. for a family member is a completely different story.  Framing it as "I have a right to do what I want for a living" is over simplification.  

It has nothing to do with anyone else.  I didn't ask my neighbour if I can go to work today.

No it's not.  It's a matter of choice.  If you want to buy my kidney, and I want to sell you it, why should anyone else have a say?

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, Penderyn said:

It seems to me criminal in the extreme to act as an accomplice in launching anyone into a life under late capitalism.

Did you miss words here?

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, bcsapper said:

It has nothing to do with anyone else.  I didn't ask my neighbour if I can go to work today.

No it's not.  It's a matter of choice.  If you want to buy my kidney, and I want to sell you it, why should anyone else have a say?

Yes, you don't have as much choice as you think you have.

If you want to start out with simplified arguments, so shall I.

[-1=e^ipi]

Legalize kidney sales!

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, you don't have as much choice as you think you have.

If you want to start out with simplified arguments, so shall I.

I'm not talking about the choices I, or others have.  I'm talking about the choices we should have.

I realise you can't actually have my kidney.

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I'm not talking about the choices I, or others have.  I'm talking about the choices we should have.

I realise you can't actually have my kidney.

And we should be able to walk naked in public, to live anywhere we want, and to live without paying taxes.  Coming up next... reality.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And we should be able to walk naked in public, to live anywhere we want, and to live without paying taxes.  Coming up next... reality.

You do see the utter pointlessness of arguing when there is only one point of view, don't you?  If we all had to stick to what the law actually says, instead of arguing what it should say, we might as well not bother.  There's only one right answer, and we all know what it is.  Go for a walk, I guess.

[-1=e^ipi]

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

And we should be able to walk naked in public

I'm mostly fine with that honestly. My main concern is public hygiene (Ex. if someone sits of a public bus naked).

 

23 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

to live anywhere we want, and to live without paying taxes.

The first would destroy property rights. The second would destroy the ability to run a government and create anarchy.

 

Are you really equating these to giving freely consenting adults the right to exchange sperm and eggs for money?

Edited April 7, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

I'm mostly fine with that honestly. My main concern is public hygiene (Ex. if someone sits of a public bus naked).

Wear pants then.  You sound like a "pants guy".

 

14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Are you really equating these to giving freely consenting adults the right to exchange sperm and eggs for money?

It goes back to BCS saying that "people shouldn't be able to tell me what to do".  It's kind of rich because both extremes - for and against that position - exist within conservatism.

 

14 minutes ago, -1=e^ipi said:

The first would destroy property rights. The second would destroy the ability to run a government and create anarchy.

First: So if I sell my house to an Indonesian it destroys property rights ?  Weird.  

Second: The phrasing of the sentence could read "would destroy the ability to create anarchy".  And if you want to still have governments, you could abolish private money transactions, and use the new visibility on wealth to distribute it in a refreshingly unfree way.

[Michael Hardner]

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

You do see the utter pointlessness of arguing when there is only one point of view, don't you?

Yes, and that's why I argue with you.

30 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

If we all had to stick to what the law actually says, instead of arguing what it should say, we might as well not bother.  There's only one right answer, and we all know what it is.  Go for a walk, I guess.

You sound like a "pants guy".

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, and that's why I argue with you.

You sound like a "pants guy".

I rarely wear a dress.

[Penderyn]

18 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Did you miss words here?

Bloody capitalism?