[lbo-talk] advances in contracting out

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Tue Feb 5 11:37:35 PST 2008


Michael Pollak wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Page Six was quoted as saying:
>
>
>> New York Post [Page Six] - February 5, 2008
>>
>> Rent-a-womb
>>
>> HAVING a baby without nasty stretch marks is all the rage among rich
>> socialites.
>>
>
> Just out of curiosity, do they have any evidence that that's why they are
> doing it? And not for the reasons that 99.9% of people use surrogacy,
> namely that they can't have a baby themselves? Rich people can be
> infertile too --

Rich people can also be huge assholes who use other people like objects. I suspect rich people are much more often huge assholes than infertile but I haven't seen fertility rates broken out by income. Neither have I seen asshole rates broken out by income either for that matter. I suspect they like the idea that they are so rich they can hire out such inconveniences as pregnancy plus vain enough not to want to admit to 'deficiencies' like infertility so they keep the reason for such a decision from the press. Most of them are rather shy about garnering media attention so perhaps it's privacy rather than vanity that keeps them quiet. I'm attributing motives here so I better stop before I'm told how counterproductive such opinion stating can be to the cause of the left even if it isn't really intended to be taken too seriously.

Since the people in these examples provided a viable egg and sperm this leads one to believe the decision is not based on medical necessity. This is not proof of course but it strongly suggests this nevertheless. Anatomical uterine or hormonal issues in females are very low on the list of causes of infertility especially ones severe enough to rule out IVF.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list