Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

😳

You know, as someone who thinks surrogacy is exploitative and cruel, sometimes I think I should just let the pro-surrogacy people make my arguments for me. They do a better job at revealing the grotesque entitlement of pro-surrogacy people than I could ever do, just by being themselves.

Wealthy women have been exploiting poor women for millennia, yes. If that is your argument as to why surrogacy is good, you’ve lost.

Geez, do you also consider it “exploitative” to pay a lower income person to scrub your toilets for you?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are they also against IVF?

Not at all. In fact, Italian government pays for 5 rounds. But that’s not something these rabbid posters want to hear about.

Isn’t the government’s motivation there to promote more ethnic Italian babies not to be nice to the mother?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

You don’t seem to grasp the difference between for profit and donation. Totally different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

😳

You know, as someone who thinks surrogacy is exploitative and cruel, sometimes I think I should just let the pro-surrogacy people make my arguments for me. They do a better job at revealing the grotesque entitlement of pro-surrogacy people than I could ever do, just by being themselves.

Wealthy women have been exploiting poor women for millennia, yes. If that is your argument as to why surrogacy is good, you’ve lost.

Geez, do you also consider it “exploitative” to pay a lower income person to scrub your toilets for you?

Yes.

But you would also not just give them money to live on, right??? Some of you are truly dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are they also against IVF?

Not at all. In fact, Italian government pays for 5 rounds. But that’s not something these rabbid posters want to hear about.

Isn’t the government’s motivation there to promote more ethnic Italian babies not to be nice to the mother?

You don’t think that an Italian couple paying an Italian surrogate to be able to have a child equals more Italian babies?

[Anonymous]

In Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Czech Republic, it's not possible to get a court to enforce a surrogacy agreement. This is the same in the UK, where a court will decide what is in the best interest of the child if there is a disagreement.

[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?

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.

Very happy to say not my in-laws. My DH is adopted (as well as his siblings); in-laws never tried for genetic children. Neither have DH and I. Both our kids are adopted. No narcissism in tins family.

[Anonymous]

My daughter told me last month she plans to "donate" her eggs so she can earn money for grad school.

She wants to do surrogacy but cannot do so until she has a proven healthy successful pregnancy.

These are exciting times for women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium and the Czech Republic, it's not possible to get a court to enforce a surrogacy agreement. This is the same in the UK, where a court will decide what is in the best interest of the child if there is a disagreement.

Well, how novel of them basing their decision around what is best for the child, instead of treating the child as property dictated by a sales contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

If someone just wants to do it for a family member, it’s a family affair. When compensation enters the picture, yes, it’s absolutely exploitative.

You are exhausting. You don’t get to make that decision for every woman. Worry about your own womb.

So you agree that a woman should be able to sell one of her kidneys, yes?

Again, organ donation is a thing. U couldn’t care less is someone made money doing it too. But a child is not an organ. So it is a nonsensical argument.

We all know organ donation is “a thing”. The question is simple: should it be legal for a person to SELL an organ?

What if a person just wanted to rent out their kidney for 9 months and then have it returned? That seems comparable to renting out a womb, right?

The topic of this thread is surrogacy. If you want to talk about the ethics of organ donation, start a separate thread. It has nothing to do with surrogacy. Women have been carrying children for other women for millennia.

😳

You know, as someone who thinks surrogacy is exploitative and cruel, sometimes I think I should just let the pro-surrogacy people make my arguments for me. They do a better job at revealing the grotesque entitlement of pro-surrogacy people than I could ever do, just by being themselves.

Wealthy women have been exploiting poor women for millennia, yes. If that is your argument as to why surrogacy is good, you’ve lost.

Geez, do you also consider it “exploitative” to pay a lower income person to scrub your toilets for you?

Geez, would you rather scrub a stranger's toilets or gestate a stranger's embryo for nine months, give birth, then hand over the baby?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Europe is stronger on human rights and this practice is exploitative. This law is preventing people from renting the bodies of poor women in third world countries.

Exactly. The bodily integrity of an impoverished, desperate woman is more important than your desire to have your “own” baby rather than adopting one of the tens of thousands of kids in need.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe is stronger on human rights and this practice is exploitative. This law is preventing people from renting the bodies of poor women in third world countries.

Exactly. The bodily integrity of an impoverished, desperate woman is more important than your desire to have your “own” baby rather than adopting one of the tens of thousands of kids in need.

That you know better than these women how they can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe is stronger on human rights and this practice is exploitative. This law is preventing people from renting the bodies of poor women in third world countries.

Exactly. The bodily integrity of an impoverished, desperate woman is more important than your desire to have your “own” baby rather than adopting one of the tens of thousands of kids in need.

That you know better than these women how you can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

FTFY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Europe is stronger on human rights and this practice is exploitative. This law is preventing people from renting the bodies of poor women in third world countries.

Exactly. The bodily integrity of an impoverished, desperate woman is more important than your desire to have your “own” baby rather than adopting one of the tens of thousands of kids in need.

That you know better than these women how you can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

FTFY

What is it they say? The difference between political parties is whether they see woman as public or private property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My daughter told me last month she plans to "donate" her eggs so she can earn money for grad school.

She wants to do surrogacy but cannot do so until she has a proven healthy successful pregnancy.

These are exciting times for women.

If she's earning money, she is selling her eggs, not donating them.

Just like women work at brothels, they are not "volunteers."

Exciting times indeed.