banana wrote:I'm stating the obvious simply as rhetoric. Just remarking that the tinting on one's glasses is not always rose but blood.
And the tinting on glasses doesn't matter if a person is blind. (Don't ask me what that means, just participating in the 'rhetoric' so I sound as intelligent as you.)
I had a big argument with some Catholic friends recently about contraception in the Philippines. According to some people's morals, it is 'wrong' to use contraception, and my point was - tell that to the woman who already has 5 children to feed and whose husband has another woman and another family to feed.
Scene shift to India. There are real people with real problems. And unless I'm willing to get down on my hands and knees and help, I'm not going to sit here and say "you can't do this and you can't do that because it's morally wrong". There are women who are desperate, and this may be an option. Not ideal of course. Neither is IVF. What's the difference between in infertile couple having a baby in a tube and a baby in a real womb? Do the IVF doctors need the money more, or the fertile but poor women in India?
I'm not saying I advocate it, I'm just saying I am not going to condemn it offhand, from a distance, knowing very little about what all the parties are going through.
Back to the rhetoric - it's you and others who are making moral judgments now that are wearing tinted glasses, seeing the world in a certain way. When we try to suspend judgment for a while, sometimes we see things more clearly. Try it.