Here in (country) everyone on the left hates surrogacy with a burning passion, since it involves rich people essentially buying babies and using the bodies of poor women for their own benefit. Even the right wing parties feel sliiightly uncomfortable discussing said topics (with the exception of the extremely liberal ones who also love to act all european and modern).
Even sitcoms such as Friends or Always Sunny in Philadelphia had plotlines where this happened and they didn't pointed out how some rich fuck was taking advantage of a poor person. (Well, it was a sitcom so the poor person was either an asshole or doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but you get the picture: whitewashing surrogacy is also bad).
So yeah, what's the deal with that? No one points out how fucked up it is???
That's not the issue here. If people want to have their own kids that's fine, I'm not against it. This mindset of only raising your own "biological children" though naturally supposes that stepmothers and stepfathers, and those who adopt children are not parents because they didn't have their own children.
I don't see why someone's natural instinct to rear children should care whether or not the child is biologically related to them. That's what I take issue with.
And that's what I'm fuckin rolling my eyes over. Yea humans are social and have more instinctive drive to care for the children of others than other species do but you're literally going "I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE ENTIRE EVOLUTION OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION!"
Humans naturally lived in small communities, where every adult was involved in the parentage/rearing of every child in the community. Obviously each child's biological parents were the primary rearer, but the Western idea that everyone is atomised and separate from the greater society and that you're only responsibility is to yourself and your biological family is outrageous. Being unwilling to be any sort of parental figure to a child in need is frankly unnatural. Humans have a natural drive to parent children and that drive doesn't stop where the genetics do.
If you're not passing on your genes there is literally no point to sexual reproduction
I already know humans are social and have more of a drive to care for others children than most species, I literally already mentioned it, idk why you reiterated.
You can talk about how people should care for the children of others all day and you'll be right but it's seriously mind numbingly stupid to go "I just don't understand why someone's instinct cares if they are biologically related to you" when that's literally the point of the fucking instinct, that's why it exists.
It's like throwing your hands up at all the horny people in the world just flummoxed about why they want to have all this sex. It's because of millions of years of evolution inculcating a desire to reproduce, its not fucking hard to grok
And yet there are people with the drive to be motherly/fatherly/etc without having the desire to reproduce. The drive to parent can exist independently of the drive to reproduce, and while they're intricately tied I don't understand how someone can completely turn off that drive to parent. Perhaps it makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that's because I'm one of the ones I mentioned above, I like being an uncle/fatherly figure but don't care to have children of my own.
Guess I don't understand what you're trying to explain, and tbh I don't really want to. So let's call it here.