Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister lives in Italy, is married to an Italian man, and has been an Italian citizen for nearly 20 years. They had an incredibly hard time conceiving. She was dead set against surrogacy, which is fine and was her personal choice so they ended up researching adoption. Due to their advanced age 39 and 40, they were told they would never be able to adopt an infant. They would at best be able to adopt a 7 or 8-year-old. They opted for IVF. The Italian government pays for 5 rounds and they ended up having a girl after the 5th round.

That seems incredibly generous.

+1

Ask me how many rounds the US government paid for me to do IVF? That is an incredible program for Italians.

Why should the US taxpayer pay for your infertility? Move to Italy
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rmv63069o

At the bottom of this article it mentions that “all forms of surrogacy” are banned in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. This really surprises me that Western European countries, that are typically rather progressive, at least compared to the U.S. would have this type of policy.

Good. It should be outlawed in the US as well. There is nothing progressive about wealthy women using poor women to have their babies because they don't want to lose their figured it they don't want to interrupt their careers. Surrogacy is despicable.

Surrogacy agency’s in the US don’t allow poor people to become surrogates. I am doing surrogacy right now and they don’t allow anyone who is on government assistance of any kind to become a surrogate. You cannot be on food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid or any government programs.

Bull!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rmv63069o

At the bottom of this article it mentions that “all forms of surrogacy” are banned in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. This really surprises me that Western European countries, that are typically rather progressive, at least compared to the U.S. would have this type of policy.

Good. It should be outlawed in the US as well. There is nothing progressive about wealthy women using poor women to have their babies because they don't want to lose their figured it they don't want to interrupt their careers. Surrogacy is despicable.

Surrogacy agency’s in the US don’t allow poor people to become surrogates. I am doing surrogacy right now and they don’t allow anyone who is on government assistance of any kind to become a surrogate. You cannot be on food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid or any government programs.

Bull!

This is true. Any reputable surrogacy agency will not allow women on welfare to become a surrogate. There is a risk that they could be considered fraudulently using a government program for benefits if they are a surrogate. My surrogacy contract literally says she cannot be on welfare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rmv63069o

At the bottom of this article it mentions that “all forms of surrogacy” are banned in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. This really surprises me that Western European countries, that are typically rather progressive, at least compared to the U.S. would have this type of policy.

Good. It should be outlawed in the US as well. There is nothing progressive about wealthy women using poor women to have their babies because they don't want to lose their figured it they don't want to interrupt their careers. Surrogacy is despicable.

Surrogacy agency’s in the US don’t allow poor people to become surrogates. I am doing surrogacy right now and they don’t allow anyone who is on government assistance of any kind to become a surrogate. You cannot be on food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid or any government programs.

Bull!

DP here but why is that unbelievable? Do you know every surrogate agencies’ policies in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister lives in Italy, is married to an Italian man, and has been an Italian citizen for nearly 20 years. They had an incredibly hard time conceiving. She was dead set against surrogacy, which is fine and was her personal choice so they ended up researching adoption. Due to their advanced age 39 and 40, they were told they would never be able to adopt an infant. They would at best be able to adopt a 7 or 8-year-old. They opted for IVF. The Italian government pays for 5 rounds and they ended up having a girl after the 5th round.

I think it's extremely irrational and irresponsible to outlaw surrogacy while at the same time sponsoring IVF. Especially in a country that struggles with birth rates so much.

Personally, I think it is extremely irrational and irresponsible to encourage surrogacy. It’s harmful to women and to babies.

Please stop. Then you need to bad adoption too. You make no sense.

No, they are quite different. Adoption is fixing a problem in that the birth mother doesn’t want to raise the child (conceding that this is actually often untrue and modern infant adoption is often grotesquely corrupt and exploitative). In theory, at least, the birth mother doesn’t want the baby so somebody needs to raise the baby.

Surrogacy on the other hand only exists to provide babies to people who can’t or don’t want to go through pregnancy. It is, in other words, only of benefit to the adults, not to the child. And — let’s be clear here — it benefits wealthy adults while harming people with far less political sway (the newborn and the surrogates).

Which is why it isn’t going anywhere, overall, despite what Italy has done. Wealthy people have bought babies since the beginning of time and they aren’t stopping now.

I’m not sure how it’s harming the surrogate. We are talking about gestational surrogacy right? The kind where the surrogate’s egg is not being used and she is not genetically related to the child. In this case the surrogate is truly only acting as an incubator and I don’t see the big deal in a woman choosing to do that for payment is. I do t see how she’s being exploited.

She is not being exploited at all. Every surrogate I know did it after having her own children to better her life. It was not particularly hard earned money.

Do your hear yourself?

A rich white woman knows surrogates who are likely also rich white women who are happy to be surrogates. You probably also know another rich woman who “sugared” in college for expensive handbags and luxury trips and now believe that “sex work is work”. News at 11.

This rich white woman narrative is something you made up. Go troll somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62rmv63069o

At the bottom of this article it mentions that “all forms of surrogacy” are banned in Italy, France, Germany, and Spain. This really surprises me that Western European countries, that are typically rather progressive, at least compared to the U.S. would have this type of policy.

Good. It should be outlawed in the US as well. There is nothing progressive about wealthy women using poor women to have their babies because they don't want to lose their figured it they don't want to interrupt their careers. Surrogacy is despicable.

Surrogacy agency’s in the US don’t allow poor people to become surrogates. I am doing surrogacy right now and they don’t allow anyone who is on government assistance of any kind to become a surrogate. You cannot be on food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid or any government programs.

Bull!

This is true. Any reputable surrogacy agency will not allow women on welfare to become a surrogate. There is a risk that they could be considered fraudulently using a government program for benefits if they are a surrogate. My surrogacy contract literally says she cannot be on welfare.

So the concern is for the government being defrauded of welfare, not the well being of the woman? That's even stranger, IMO.

This also seems like it could still qualify poor women who don't qualify for welfare for various reasons (working minimum wage and making just too much to qualify, married and making just too much to qualify combined, undocumented immigrant, state limits how many years you can be on assistance, etc). They would be even more desperate for money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In France and Germany by law whoever gives birth is the mother. Even altruistic surrogacy is banned. So if your sister wants to help you out and carry your child for free it still isn't allowed.

They see surrogacy as undignified because a child is not a product or the result of some type of transaction. Surrogacy is treating the child as something fungible not human.

Bravo to these countries.
I definitely agree with this.

By this logic, wouldn’t adoption be even more objectionable? Surrogacy is often about really wanting your own bio kids, and I don’t see how fungibility fits into that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In France and Germany by law whoever gives birth is the mother. Even altruistic surrogacy is banned. So if your sister wants to help you out and carry your child for free it still isn't allowed.

They see surrogacy as undignified because a child is not a product or the result of some type of transaction. Surrogacy is treating the child as something fungible not human.

Bravo to these countries.
I definitely agree with this.

By this logic, wouldn’t adoption be even more objectionable? Surrogacy is often about really wanting your own bio kids, and I don’t see how fungibility fits into that

Not unless adopted children are being created with the intent of giving them to someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister lives in Italy, is married to an Italian man, and has been an Italian citizen for nearly 20 years. They had an incredibly hard time conceiving. She was dead set against surrogacy, which is fine and was her personal choice so they ended up researching adoption. Due to their advanced age 39 and 40, they were told they would never be able to adopt an infant. They would at best be able to adopt a 7 or 8-year-old. They opted for IVF. The Italian government pays for 5 rounds and they ended up having a girl after the 5th round.

I think it's extremely irrational and irresponsible to outlaw surrogacy while at the same time sponsoring IVF. Especially in a country that struggles with birth rates so much.

Personally, I think it is extremely irrational and irresponsible to encourage surrogacy. It’s harmful to women and to babies.

Please stop. Then you need to bad adoption too. You make no sense.

No, they are quite different. Adoption is fixing a problem in that the birth mother doesn’t want to raise the child (conceding that this is actually often untrue and modern infant adoption is often grotesquely corrupt and exploitative). In theory, at least, the birth mother doesn’t want the baby so somebody needs to raise the baby.

Surrogacy on the other hand only exists to provide babies to people who can’t or don’t want to go through pregnancy. It is, in other words, only of benefit to the adults, not to the child. And — let’s be clear here — it benefits wealthy adults while harming people with far less political sway (the newborn and the surrogates).

Which is why it isn’t going anywhere, overall, despite what Italy has done. Wealthy people have bought babies since the beginning of time and they aren’t stopping now.

I’m not sure how it’s harming the surrogate. We are talking about gestational surrogacy right? The kind where the surrogate’s egg is not being used and she is not genetically related to the child. In this case the surrogate is truly only acting as an incubator and I don’t see the big deal in a woman choosing to do that for payment is. I do t see how she’s being exploited.

The bolded IS the problem. It's a human being, not a piece of equipment.

Who are you to decide that? I would have gladly carried my sister's child if it came to that.

There is a big difference between carrying your sister’s child and being a poorer woman with worse healthcare options carrying the child of a much wealthier parent, where the baby you’ve carried and nurtured for nine months never sees you again minutes or hours after birth.

Do you know literally anything about the horrors of the global surrogacy industry? The abuses? The women locked in homes in poorer countries, the physical abuse they endure, what happens if they have health problems, etc.? This is all documented at this point; frankly, the only people who can support that level of abuse and corruption must have no souls. Or, they favor the rights of wealthy parents to engage in abuse in order to have children. That’s a story as old as time, so not new news.

Oh please, none of this is happening in Italy, France or Germany. I also fail to see how I would have been able to carry my sister's child if all surrogacy is outlawed. Perhaps we should work on fair practice laws and regulate it better, rather than making it a moral issue and completely outlawing it.

Are you sure about this? Really? What makes you so confident?

And I’ll believe this isn’t a moral issue when I see wealthy women frequently carrying babies as surrogates for poor women. It’s nuts that the same people who claim to be supporting fair trade and labor are so hands off when it comes to surrogacy, I suppose because they believe they are entitled to babies and that trumps the welfare of exploited women and babies.

[Anonymous]

I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In France and Germany by law whoever gives birth is the mother. Even altruistic surrogacy is banned. So if your sister wants to help you out and carry your child for free it still isn't allowed.

They see surrogacy as undignified because a child is not a product or the result of some type of transaction. Surrogacy is treating the child as something fungible not human.

Bravo to these countries.
I definitely agree with this.

By this logic, wouldn’t adoption be even more objectionable? Surrogacy is often about really wanting your own bio kids, and I don’t see how fungibility fits into that

No, adoption is solving a problem in its ideal form (a baby that already exists needs a home), although admittedly the adoption industry is full of well-documented corruption and abuse as well.

It is remarkable to me how mostly-leftists absolutely refuse to acknowledge the corruption, exploitation, and harm that exists in the current surrogacy industry. There is a reason that the US (with its appalling track record on maternal and infant healthcare) is an outlier in allowing it. When you as a society make it clear that you do not care about the health and welfare of pregnant mothers and newborn babies, surrogacy as an industry flourishes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I legit had no idea there were anti-surrogacy people out there. Wow.

She is a crazy person.

Personally (as one of multiple anti-surrogacy posters in this thread), I would say the person defending an exploitative and cruel industry is the crazy one, but people who want to exploit the vulnerable always come up with pretzel logic to justify their exploitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is supremely selfish for the infant and we already know that adopted newborns can experience grief and loss. When an infant is removed from their birth parent(s), even if the adoption is a positive step, the child still experiences separation from the primary caregiver they bonded with in utero.

If you love children so much why are you deliberately hurting them. These babies aren't crying for you but for the woman who gave them birth and their security from the beginning. Selfish and greedy.

Exactly. They aren’t puppies. Even puppies get weeks with their mothers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My sister lives in Italy, is married to an Italian man, and has been an Italian citizen for nearly 20 years. They had an incredibly hard time conceiving. She was dead set against surrogacy, which is fine and was her personal choice so they ended up researching adoption. Due to their advanced age 39 and 40, they were told they would never be able to adopt an infant. They would at best be able to adopt a 7 or 8-year-old. They opted for IVF. The Italian government pays for 5 rounds and they ended up having a girl after the 5th round.

I think it's extremely irrational and irresponsible to outlaw surrogacy while at the same time sponsoring IVF. Especially in a country that struggles with birth rates so much.

Personally, I think it is extremely irrational and irresponsible to encourage surrogacy. It’s harmful to women and to babies.

Please stop. Then you need to bad adoption too. You make no sense.

No, they are quite different. Adoption is fixing a problem in that the birth mother doesn’t want to raise the child (conceding that this is actually often untrue and modern infant adoption is often grotesquely corrupt and exploitative). In theory, at least, the birth mother doesn’t want the baby so somebody needs to raise the baby.

Surrogacy on the other hand only exists to provide babies to people who can’t or don’t want to go through pregnancy. It is, in other words, only of benefit to the adults, not to the child. And — let’s be clear here — it benefits wealthy adults while harming people with far less political sway (the newborn and the surrogates).

Which is why it isn’t going anywhere, overall, despite what Italy has done. Wealthy people have bought babies since the beginning of time and they aren’t stopping now.

I’m not sure how it’s harming the surrogate. We are talking about gestational surrogacy right? The kind where the surrogate’s egg is not being used and she is not genetically related to the child. In this case the surrogate is truly only acting as an incubator and I don’t see the big deal in a woman choosing to do that for payment is. I do t see how she’s being exploited.

The bolded IS the problem. It's a human being, not a piece of equipment.

So what? No one’s forcing her to do it. She’s getting good pay for relatively easy work.