Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[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.

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.

What’s the payout if she dies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s this type of post that undermines the anti-surrogacy argument.

US surrogates choose their actions. All the adjectives and hyperbole of the above PP doesn’t support any argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s this type of post that undermines the anti-surrogacy argument.

US surrogates choose their actions. All the adjectives and hyperbole of the above PP doesn’t support any argument.

Just as people choose to work in unsafe places that exploit their labor? Like the kids that work in meatpacking factories in the Midwest? They’re choosing that too — I assume that makes it okay in your mind?

[Anonymous]

I am an infertile woman. It is heartbreaking. I understand the desire to be a parent but for it to not happen. I am pro-IVF (with your own gametes.)

I am anti-surrogacy, and anti-donor tissue IVF. I can see the arguments for folks with family members who are willing to be uncompensated carriers or donors and think that should probably be allowed.

Adoption is a gray area, and historically extremely unethical.

Just weighing in with these opinions because someone on this thread is conflating IVF with surrogacy and thinks if you're ok with one you have to be ok with the other. My desire to be a parent doesn't entitle me to use another person's gametes or body, even if I'm infertile (or a gay man, or etc.).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am an infertile woman. It is heartbreaking. I understand the desire to be a parent but for it to not happen. I am pro-IVF (with your own gametes.)

I am anti-surrogacy, and anti-donor tissue IVF. I can see the arguments for folks with family members who are willing to be uncompensated carriers or donors and think that should probably be allowed.

Adoption is a gray area, and historically extremely unethical.

Just weighing in with these opinions because someone on this thread is conflating IVF with surrogacy and thinks if you're ok with one you have to be ok with the other. My desire to be a parent doesn't entitle me to use another person's gametes or body, even if I'm infertile (or a gay man, or etc.).

You are entitled to your opinion and to stand by your beliefs. That’s your right. The question here is whether your opinion should stop another person from exercising their personal opinions and beliefs.

[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.

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.

Are you a man?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am an infertile woman. It is heartbreaking. I understand the desire to be a parent but for it to not happen. I am pro-IVF (with your own gametes.)

I am anti-surrogacy, and anti-donor tissue IVF. I can see the arguments for folks with family members who are willing to be uncompensated carriers or donors and think that should probably be allowed.

Adoption is a gray area, and historically extremely unethical.

Just weighing in with these opinions because someone on this thread is conflating IVF with surrogacy and thinks if you're ok with one you have to be ok with the other. My desire to be a parent doesn't entitle me to use another person's gametes or body, even if I'm infertile (or a gay man, or etc.).

You are entitled to your opinion and to stand by your beliefs. That’s your right. The question here is whether your opinion should stop another person from exercising their personal opinions and beliefs.

I'm the person you are quoting and responding to and I agree with you. I don't support most restrictive legislation, however I would like to see more regulations and standards around things like surrogacy, donor eggs, adoption, etc. I agree I can't make the decision for everyone but I want to maximize protection for all involved.

[Anonymous]

It’s crazy that if someone can’t afford to care for their child we say “just give them to someone who can.” If any of the people involved truly cared about the child in question they would provide financially so the child could stay with their family. But no one loves a child enough to pay for it if they don’t get to raise it also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s this type of post that undermines the anti-surrogacy argument.

US surrogates choose their actions. All the adjectives and hyperbole of the above PP doesn’t support any argument.

Just as people choose to work in unsafe places that exploit their labor? Like the kids that work in meatpacking factories in the Midwest? They’re choosing that too — I assume that makes it okay in your mind?

You are putting together two things that aren’t comparable and attempting to make a point. You are also making too many assumptions and attempting to make a point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy that if someone can’t afford to care for their child we say “just give them to someone who can.” If any of the people involved truly cared about the child in question they would provide financially so the child could stay with their family. But no one loves a child enough to pay for it if they don’t get to raise it also.

There's some truth to this, and I think that's changed a lot from decades ago where it was just assumed any teen or unmarried mother would give her child up for adoption. But there's also children who simply don't have parents. The parents are dead or drug addicts or left them at the firehouse. Those kids need parents. There is nothing immoral about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s crazy that if someone can’t afford to care for their child we say “just give them to someone who can.” If any of the people involved truly cared about the child in question they would provide financially so the child could stay with their family. But no one loves a child enough to pay for it if they don’t get to raise it also.

As someone tangentially involved with foster care, it’s often a question of drug use and/or mental illness. It’s not often a question of money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But how are they vulnerable? All I have been hearing for the last two years is that the government should not have a voice about women and their bodies. How is this any different? Her body, her choice.

Or do you think you are the savior of the poor and unintelligent who don't know any better?

[Anonymous]

Should people be allowed to sell their organs? Rather than just donate them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t really an issue of progressive or not. There is a just a different conception of human dignity and the role of the market in Europe than the US. In their view it infringes human dignity to allow “renting wombs”. Whereas in the US you tend to believe that people should have the right to make money from their body parts if they want to.

And, in the US there is little thought given to the welfare of the resulting baby, which is also consistent with the US versus Europe. The concern is not just exploitation of women, it’s also exploitation of the baby.

It’s not exploitation of anyone in the US. You should be allowed to carry a child for someone else, if that’s what you want to do. Treating grown women like children and telling them what they can do with their bodies is a scary trend and it’s increasing.

We don’t even allow newborn puppies to be taken from their mothers because it’s cruel. It is absolute insanity that we are supposed to pretend that a baby yanked from its birth mother moments after birth does not grieve and is not aware of that. Babies recognize the scent, sound, feel, and more of their biological mothers. Yet we are supposed to pretend all of these doesn’t happen to preserve the feelings of adults.

Often the surrogate is not the biological mother. She’s the carrier.

It’s not “absolute insanity.” It’s not cruel.

Do you know any children born from surrogacy or are you just projecting?

To that fetus the carrier is ITS MOTHER!

You’re the one who mentioned biological, which may or may not be the case.

It’s fine to disagree with the practice. It’s another thing to completely stop others from doing it if that’s what they need. Are you against adoption too?

DP. But surrogacy is not a need for anyone, and it makes you look illogical to frame it as such.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

Are you a man?

No. I'm a woman who used a surrogate because I didn't want stretch marks. I can afford it, she was happy to get paid, so why not? It's just getting paid to sit around and it really isn't demanding.