Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[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”

Well if that were the case, there would be no kids up for adoption. Why don't we cap bio kids at 2 (replacement level for your genes) and anything above that has to be through adoption? Shouldn't be an issue if no one cares if kids are biologically theirs or not.

Beyond that, even if someone doesn't care about biologically related, a lot of people don't want a kid from an 1Q 80 mom who spent her pregnancy strung out on fentanyl, so there's that.

[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.

So you think people should start selling their organs?

I could walk into a hospital right now and sign up to be a liver or kidney donor, and no one would bat an eye. How is that different? Because, gasp, women are getting compensation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even if it is, the overall risk could still be extremely low.
The risks of flying on a plane are much greater than sitting on your couch, but the chance that you will be killed or injured during a flight are still barely above zero.

[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?

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

And? So neither should have a child that’s biologically 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.

This shows you know absolutely nothing. The USA has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality. Seriously, why are you debating a situation you are so clearly uneducated on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

[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.

I actually don’t have biological children, but please by all means keep going off.

[Anonymous]

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?

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

And? So neither should have a child that’s biologically theirs?

One could debate the morality of intentionally creating a child that's half adopted, but that's a topic for another thread.

[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?

So either you think people should have 100% control of their bodies or you don’t - “it’s black and white” 🙄

[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.

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?

You misunderstand. Pp said poor people cannot be surrogates. But if it’s so amazing, why not? Why would there be such limits to prevent abuse and exploitation if it didn’t exist?

[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.

So you think people should start selling their organs?

People do sell their organs, esp kidneys. You just don’t know about it. My father was in renal failure and needed a transplant and the doctors told him he wouldn’t get one the “regular way” because of his age and advised him to search privately (do a build board on the highway, start a private campaign) after none of his family was found to be a match. When we dug deeper into this process, we were pretty disgusted (but desperate). My father died before he could get a transplant. yes, I offered one of mine, repeatedly and he wouldn’t take it.

I don’t know about other organs but there definitely is market for kidneys that isn’t discussed in the open.

[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.

I’d absolutely take that trade.

[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.

This shows you know absolutely nothing. The USA has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality. Seriously, why are you debating a situation you are so clearly uneducated on?

Ok, so should truck driving as an occupation not be allowed because statistically driving is one of the most dangerous things we do and typically it is the working class and non-college educated who goes into this for a living.

Honestly, there are many more unpleasant, demeaning, and riskier jobs that people regularly do than renting out your womb for 9 months to provide a child (that you are not genitically related to) for another couple.

It beats my job, and I'm a college educated professional.

[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.

Your argument makes absolutely no logical sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I fail to see what your point is. Surrogacy is ok as long as it is free? That’s not exploitative?

Of course that’s the point. If you want to carry someone’s child and give them that as a gift, great. But exploiting a poor impoverished woman to do so is an extremely different situation. Just like you can’t ask a homeless person to give you their kidney for $50k, why should you be able to ask that same homeless woman for a baby?