5 ms·
Pretty important for LGBTQ+ people, too.
by calderknight 3y ago
Pretty important for LGBTQ+ people, too.
- puffyengineer 3y ago[dead]
- calderknight 3y agoDifficult to discern your exact point but maybe you're suggesting that it is not important because such people can just use surrogacy? But surrogacy causes a lot of legal issues in a lot of countries, as well as necessitating trust of the surrogate mother. Not to mention issues for the surrogate mothers themselves who, as I understand it, are often treated poorly in poorer countries. Of course, I'm sure there will be many legal issues with this alternative as well. But I don't think people will be complaining about having another option on the table.
- rhinoceraptor 3y agoOne example related to this and the far-right shift in many western countries, in Italy they are retroactively removing the non-birth mother from birth certificates issued to lesbian couples.
- cudgy 3y agoCan the non-birth mother adopt to preserve parental rights?
- puffyengineer 3y ago[flagged]
- calderknight 3y agotalkin' about artificial wombs
- zxexz 3y agoThe fact that this was so downvoted makes me worry. Yes, this would be massive for same-sex, trans, etc. couples. Anyone who is not able to carry a child to term. Right now having a child isn't a fundamental biological "right". We should strive to make it a human right, through technology, regardless of biology.
- LexiMax 3y ago> The fact that this was so downvoted makes me worry. Allowing LGBT couples to have biological children risks undercutting many common biology-based excuses for discrimination. For some, being solutions-oriented is less important than justifying existing biases and saving face.
- drewbug01 3y agoThere is a very strong anti-LGBTQ undercurrent that runs through this site.