Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

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

Being a surrogate and carrying a baby that is not genetically yours, is not the same as selling one of your organs. What's the loss to the surrogate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Is this a serious question? Are you kidding me?

It’s bizarre to me how people who presumably support labor laws and safe workplaces suddenly become the most horrific of rampaging capitalists when it comes to something they want for themselves.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Kim Kardashian used surrogates and she isn’t white.

It’s either women have control over their bodies or not. A woman in the US deciding to be a surrogate is different than a woman in a poor area of India locked in a room. However if being a surrogate allowed that poor non US mom to feed her children for a year or two or buy a house then it’s arguably a better option than her children starving, homeless, and possibly ending up trafficked or something worse.

I support choice, more regulations around surrogacy- possibly federal so there isn’t a patchwork of different state laws. Honestly a surrogate choosing to do it is her choice!

Huh?
The Kardashians are white.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there isn’t enough rights/respect given to the birth mother and child in surrogacy, as compared to ethical adoption. For gay couples, there should be a swift and easy avenue for adoption. There are ethical ways to adopt and foster a child.

Why do you just assume that gay couples wouldn’t want a child that is biologically theirs?

Well it's impossible for them to have a child that is biologically both of theirs.

[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.

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?

???? What's the payout if a police officer, firefighter, anyone else dies during their job? And pregnancy for the vast majority of Western women, is not a high-risk endeavor.

The maternal mortality rate in the US is quite bad, particularly in comparison to countries that outlaw surrogacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sister doing #3 surrogacy now. She gets 100K for it. She loves being pregnant, and in her state no teacher makes 100K, ever. It is perfect for her family.

Damn, if I were 20 years younger I'd be tempted to do it for that money.

And no, I am not a poor or vulnerable woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Is this a serious question? Are you kidding me?

It’s bizarre to me how people who presumably support labor laws and safe workplaces suddenly become the most horrific of rampaging capitalists when it comes to something they want for themselves.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

It's really not that simple, same as most other things aren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Is this a serious question? Are you kidding me?

It’s bizarre to me how people who presumably support labor laws and safe workplaces suddenly become the most horrific of rampaging capitalists when it comes to something they want for themselves.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

Are you a child? Do you not understand that there are all kinds of legal limits on what you can do with your body, and for very good reasons. I can’t pay you to cut your hand off, for example. Or buy one of your kidneys. This has nothing to do with abortion.

I can certainly chose to give someone my kidney. Are you saying that if surrogacy was completely free you’d be ok with it?

If surrogacy was only limited to altruistic surrogacy, the rates would drop like a stone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there isn’t enough rights/respect given to the birth mother and child in surrogacy, as compared to ethical adoption. For gay couples, there should be a swift and easy avenue for adoption. There are ethical ways to adopt and foster a child.

Why do you just assume that gay couples wouldn’t want a child that is biologically theirs?

I assume that anyone, couples or individuals, would welcome a child regardless of “biological”[/quote]

Um no. Many couples are not interested in adoption. The vast majority prefer raising their own genetic off-spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

Is this a serious question? Are you kidding me?

It’s bizarre to me how people who presumably support labor laws and safe workplaces suddenly become the most horrific of rampaging capitalists when it comes to something they want for themselves.

Either women have the right to do whatever they want with their bodies or not. It is black and white.

If it is not, then be prepared to support abortion bans and stop gender surgery for minors because you believe the government knows best how people should be using their bodies.

It’s not black and white. You cannot sell your organs. You cannot buy other people’s organs. There are absolutely laws in place that limit what rights you have to your body. Maybe if you thought about anyone but yourself you’d realize this.

What organs are being bought and sold in surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like there isn’t enough rights/respect given to the birth mother and child in surrogacy, as compared to ethical adoption. For gay couples, there should be a swift and easy avenue for adoption. There are ethical ways to adopt and foster a child.

Why do you just assume that gay couples wouldn’t want a child that is biologically theirs?

I assume that anyone, couples or individuals, would welcome a child regardless of “biological”

Unfortunately the people who support this practice only want their little “mini me”. They don’t actually GAF about children or women.

Funny how all the people arguing so harshly against surrogacy have not adopted any children. They wanted a mini me. And I don’t even blame you. But others should be able to do the same.

Wanting your DNA to continue into future generations is a primal instinct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Being a surrogate and carrying a baby that is not genetically yours, is not the same as selling one of your organs. What's the loss to the surrogate?

Their pelvic floor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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?

???? What's the payout if a police officer, firefighter, anyone else dies during their job? And pregnancy for the vast majority of Western women, is not a high-risk endeavor.

The maternal mortality rate in the US is quite bad, particularly in comparison to countries that outlaw surrogacy.

I thought it was one of the riskiest times of a woman's life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Being a surrogate and carrying a baby that is not genetically yours, is not the same as selling one of your organs. What's the loss to the surrogate?

Their pelvic floor.

That's a risk, certainly not a given. And for 100k it's a risk many would take.

[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.

If it’s so amazing, why is it limited to rich white people? If it’s so life changing and beneficial why are there so many loopholes to jump through and requirements on income? Hmm.

Because it costs a lot of money, that is why poor people don't pay rich women to gestate for them. Are you really this dense?