Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[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 they can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

Ah, yes. The right to be a Handmaid. Exactly what the suffragettes were fighting for.

[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.

Have you advised her on her increased cancer risk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the US lack of concern about children is why they are treated like consumer goods here. In more civilized countries, surrogacy is banned because children aren’t consumer goods.

[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 they can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

Ah, yes. The right to be a Handmaid. Exactly what the suffragettes were fighting for.

I read the book Handmaids were not volunteers nor paid for their labor, unlike a surrogate. You just hate that women don't think just like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the US lack of concern about children is why they are treated like consumer goods here. In more civilized countries, surrogacy is banned because children aren’t consumer goods.

We have been told that it is just a clump of cells, a leach; a malignant growth can be excised by the host. But in this instance, they are precious children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 they can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

Ah, yes. The right to be a Handmaid. Exactly what the suffragettes were fighting for.

I read the book Handmaids were not volunteers nor paid for their labor, unlike a surrogate. You just hate that women don't think just like you.

I think that’s you, but given that you are defending the role of women in the Handmaid’s Tale, you’re obviously too crazy to take seriously.

It is nice to see defenders of surrogacy unmask themselves. Next time someone speaks up about how surrogacy is good, I’ll know they are the folks who view the Handmaid’s Tale as an instruction manual, not a cautionary story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, the US lack of concern about children is why they are treated like consumer goods here. In more civilized countries, surrogacy is banned because children aren’t consumer goods.

We have been told that it is just a clump of cells, a leach; a malignant growth can be excised by the host. But in this instance, they are precious children?

It is the defenders of surrogacy who view embryos as leeches and malignant growths.

[Anonymous]

There doesn’t seem to be any real discussion of the short-term and long-term effects to the surrogate. Being pregnant comes with numerous risk factors. Multiple pregnancies are dangerous and there are long-teen effects. Women often don’t talk about them because it is embarrassing to talk about leaking urine, having your pelvic floor drop, pain, etc. If you develop gestational diabetes your long-term risk of cardiovascular disease does up. Europe tends to be more of a nanny state so protects people from making foolish decisions that will effect you long term.

Here is one article that explains some of them: https://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/pregnancys-lasting-toll

“ Carrying a child and giving birth, whether vaginally or by cesarean section, can stress muscles, ligaments, and nerves responsible for sexual function and bladder and bowel control. While genetics certainly play a part, pregnancy by itself can lead to later problems such as pelvic pain, urine or stool leakage, or sagging or bulging pelvic structures known as pelvic organ prolapse. And the odds of these problems rise with the number of babies you've delivered — especially vaginally — along with their birth weight, Harvard experts say.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There doesn’t seem to be any real discussion of the short-term and long-term effects to the surrogate. Being pregnant comes with numerous risk factors. Multiple pregnancies are dangerous and there are long-teen effects. Women often don’t talk about them because it is embarrassing to talk about leaking urine, having your pelvic floor drop, pain, etc. If you develop gestational diabetes your long-term risk of cardiovascular disease does up. Europe tends to be more of a nanny state so protects people from making foolish decisions that will effect you long term.

Here is one article that explains some of them: https://www.health.harvard.edu/womens-health/pregnancys-lasting-toll

“ Carrying a child and giving birth, whether vaginally or by cesarean section, can stress muscles, ligaments, and nerves responsible for sexual function and bladder and bowel control. While genetics certainly play a part, pregnancy by itself can lead to later problems such as pelvic pain, urine or stool leakage, or sagging or bulging pelvic structures known as pelvic organ prolapse. And the odds of these problems rise with the number of babies you've delivered — especially vaginally — along with their birth weight, Harvard experts say.”

Plus the cancer risks.

But yes, of course that is all swept under the rug here, usually by the same crowd that claims to support worker safety laws and claim to be environmentalists concerned about global warming. They immediately become vicious capitalists who have no compunction about who they harm when it comes to getting a child.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 they can use their bodies is so... patriarchal.

Ah, yes. The right to be a Handmaid. Exactly what the suffragettes were fighting for.

I read the book Handmaids were not volunteers nor paid for their labor, unlike a surrogate. You just hate that women don't think just like you.

I think that’s you, but given that you are defending the role of women in the Handmaid’s Tale, you’re obviously too crazy to take seriously.

It is nice to see defenders of surrogacy unmask themselves. Next time someone speaks up about how surrogacy is good, I’ll know they are the folks who view the Handmaid’s Tale as an instruction manual, not a cautionary story.

Well put.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not even women anymore. Just persons with wombs.

The dehumanization is almost complete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not even women anymore. Just persons with wombs.

The dehumanization is almost complete.

Yes. It always surprises me how liberal progressives can champion the utter de-personification of women, reducing them to commodity body parts, and then be shocked when abortion rights disappear. When you promote treating women as walking, commodified wombs, don’t be surprised when your political opponents use the same strategy.

[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.

So what's the storyline around women that don't need the money and do it for altruistic reasons? Because that's also banned...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not even women anymore. Just persons with wombs.

The dehumanization is almost complete.

Uterus havers and front holers. Where have I heard those terms before? Golly, it is right on the tip of my tongue....

[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.

So what's the storyline around women that don't need the money and do it for altruistic reasons? Because that's also banned...

Good. I've seen people just assuming their sister of childbearing age will someday be their egg donor or surrogate and it's creepy.