My X experience the lats few days:
Me arguing on X: Gay parenting either through adoption or surrogacy is not the ideal. A child should know its biological father and its mother and will have an easier time getting through life and feeling secure, ceteris paribus. But we as Americans allow and endorse many other less-than-deal situations for child rearing and our Constitution enshrines the right of free association and the freedom to contract.
A surrogate mother might seem unnatural and appalling to you, but everyone who works sells their body. You can say, "But we shouldn't instigate less than ideal conditions for children." Or a "child has a right to a mom and a dad." What child are you talking about? The child that doesn't exist because of your putative policy? Are you actually suggesting that children should be deprived of existing because they won't land in an ideal circumstance? Sound a lot like eugenics and pro-abortion rhetoric. Furthermore, you're wrong if you think that because, according to studies, children of same sex couples (CSSCs) seem to do just as well if not better than your average child--this is probably because of affluence, but the data are clear. So there is no trackable societal downside to having CSSCs.
"Buying a baby is wrong!" Why? Every baby is paid for. Every hospital visit is a transaction. Adoptions are extremely expensive and transactional. Why is the creation of human life too sacrosanct for the considerations of profit and labor? Because it cheapens human life? How? Again, we labor to earn our bread, we are 1/3 slaves to the government through taxes. Not to say, selling a child is easy or like buying a burger. The greatest harm is done to the surrogate mother who has to sever those natural emotional bonds to the baby that grew inside her. But that is her choice, and she must deal with it like we all do with our hard choices. Adoption mothers do this all the time and we allow them to. Are you going to give teen moms the option to give up an accidental baby but not a woman who made a conscious choice to do so before getting pregnant? How will you enforce that? Make adoptions blind so moms can't choose? More government oversight of who gets kids and who doesn't? Most adoptees (60% or so) desire to see their birth mother and father. With surrogacy, that is much easier as the child probably lives with at least one of its bio parents. But even if that is impossible due to privacy arrangements or contracts, the kid will live. Human babies are incredibly resilient. We are made that way. Mothers died in child birth throughout history. Babies can develop affection and attach to an adopted parent easily especially the earlier it happens.
"Embryo destruction is wrong." So are you advocating the abolishment of IVF because that genie is out of the bottle and there is no world in which the US bans IVF, nor should we lest we cede the genetic arms race to China. It is uncomfortable, yes, but many other countries are going to have a population of super humans and we aren't if you get your way. Also, I think abortion is wrong. I don't think it is murder before viability, but I think the closer the baby gets to being a viable human the closer it comes to murder. An embryo is new life, but nature or God in His infinite wisdom allows multiple embryos to be discarded as they fail to implant. You can say "well that is God's will," but then shouldn't you, if you believe embryo destruction is murder, do everything in your power to prevent that destruction or else you are engaging in negligent homicide? For example, if women are overweight, it is more likely that she won't have an embryo implant. So by being obese a women is committing negligent murder if an embryo fails to become implanted according to an "embryo destroyed in murder" person.
Conservative X: Oh yeah? Look at these four awful gay dads!
Me: Anecdotal evidence is not...
Conservative X: Shutup, f@g ***blocks***