I haven't noticed many people here mention the implant (implanon/nexplanon). Are they not commonly used in the US? It seems fairly popular here in Australia.

The problem is that people talk about this like it is any other type of 'service' with penalties for failing to perform the contract. If the penalty for refusing an abortion is the child being abandoned with you and/or bankruptcy (because many surrogates aren't wealthy enough to accept the costs) then I can't see how…

If it's your body, you can chose to abort. But just like biological father's don't have the right to force an abortion, neither should parents hiring a surrogate. That right lies only with the person who is pregnant.

But should it even be legal to establish a legal contract that allows the contracting parents to have so much control over the body of the surrogate? Forcing the surrogate to chose between abortion, financial penalties, or raising the baby themselves is unethical, and should be illegal.

It is her body, and therefore her decision! The biological or contracting parents don't get to own her body just because she is acting as a surrogate.

In which case he needs to get permission from the people whose photographs he wants to use.

That's the point of making based on a percentage of their operating budget. If their budget is huge, then their fine is correspondingly huge.

The comments on this one are chock full of arseholes.

The point is that the bystander wasn't sure so she asked, which is also what the guy should have done in the first place. Someone being passive because they are scared isn't consent.

Mandatory arbitration clauses should be void in cases where there is a big power difference between the parties (e.g. employer/employee, consumer/corporation).

There's nothing at all wrong with you talking about how you found one worse than the other, or for other people to share their own experiences in response. But it is wrong for Dawkins to declare that one is worse than the other as a general fact.

Economic rather than social liberalism. I.E. companies can do whatever they like, but people can't.

Is the fact that they will only be able to safely have a small number of births advice people are given before they have Caesareans? It seems like whenever I see risks of VB vs CS discussed the focus is only on the current birth, and not the additional risk involved in subsequent births.

Also, if medical decisions are being based on risk of lawsuits instead of a combination of doctor's advice and patient's wishes, then there is something very very wrong with the system. There are many people in this thread arguing as though the risk of lawsuits is a legitimate reason for making medical decisions.

Some else said that a fourth CS is also risky. Is there anyone who can weigh in on the relative risk of a VBAC after 3 CS, vs a fourth CS?

To be fair bad tears to the perineum are still a risk in any birthing position. They reduce, not eliminate, the damage.

I didn't think the risk of that type of tearing is any higher for VBAC - it's just one of the standard risks for any vaginal birth. The additional risk from VBAC is that the caesarean scar could tear.

I just don't understand this. Yes, there are atheists who try to convert people and mock religious beliefs, but there are also religious people who try to convert people and threaten non-believers with hell. Arseholes will be arseholes, but I'm not sure why it has been particularly associated with atheists.

If I remember correctly, it's implied that all of her family/friends were killed because she wouldn't participate.

Well, given she expected him to punch rather than shoot her, she was possibly crouching down to protect her face from his fist.