Italy, France, Germany, and Spain outlaw surrogacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a law that de facto makes it impossible for gay couples to have children. It’s not progressive. In Italy it was advanced by the far right government.

It is impossible for gay couples to “have” children. Gay couples adopt a child born to a woman. But don’t let biology get in the way of your feelings or beliefs.

Technically one of the man can “marry and divorce” a woman. So it’s hard to enforce.

[Anonymous]

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 is amazing. If a woman chooses to do this in the US, she should be allowed to make the choice. It’s despicable to take this away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many hire the Ukrainian women for this.

Americans also, f.e. that Hollywood couple which rejected a baby girl born with disabilities:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-perils-of-wartime-adoption-we-promised-bridget-we-would-come-get-her-a-abf4ad88-9c62-48b6-8b9b-f57bc3afeeba

[Anonymous]

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.

Hollywood does not agree with you. Yet you still worship Hollywood at least once a year, and give them money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a law that de facto makes it impossible for gay couples to have children. It’s not progressive. In Italy it was advanced by the far right government.

It is impossible for gay couples to “have” children. Gay couples adopt a child born to a woman. But don’t let biology get in the way of your feelings or beliefs.

Technically one of the man can “marry and divorce” a woman. So it’s hard to enforce.

Plus, men can get pregnant and have babies too. Gender is a social construct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you know that they also ban abortion in the third trimester?

Third trimester is week 28-40. That’s late and very rare.

So?

3rd trimester elective termination is still 100% lawful in D.C., New Jersey, and several other U.S. states, but is BANNED by these supposedly “progressive” EU countries.

Those EU countries have government funded abortion.

But they restrict elective abortions much earlier. Even Finland has a 12 week limit.

If the government will pay for your abortion, you don’t need to wait past 12 weeks.

In the U.S., most non-health-related abortions later than 12 weeks are because the woman is too poor to get it done immediately.

Why don’t you set up a charity to fund them?

If you want the government to ban it after a certain point, then the government should pay for it before that point.

Otherwise, mind yo own business Karen/Ken.

[Anonymous]

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.

Hollywood does not agree with you. Yet you still worship Hollywood at least once a year, and give them money.

What are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

So is IVF legal in these countries? If so, this means that after fertilization, the implantation must occur in the woman who provided the egg? Why in the world does it matter who carries the child to term after fertilization? I don’t understand the logic at all.

[Anonymous]

There is certainly value in surrogacy for infertile couples but the potential for exploitation is huge. Unless there is a way to end the exploitation I can understand the bans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Did you know that they also ban abortion in the third trimester?

Third trimester is week 28-40. That’s late and very rare.

So?

3rd trimester elective termination is still 100% lawful in D.C., New Jersey, and several other U.S. states, but is BANNED by these supposedly “progressive” EU countries.

Those EU countries have government funded abortion.

But they restrict elective abortions much earlier. Even Finland has a 12 week limit.

Still much more reasonable than certain US states which ban it completely.

[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.

Hollywood does not agree with you. Yet you still worship Hollywood at least once a year, and give them money.

What are you talking about?

Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, etc.; the list is long of Hollywood celebs renting poor women’s wombs for kids they can afford, but don’t carry.

[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.

Hollywood does not agree with you. Yet you still worship Hollywood at least once a year, and give them money.

What are you talking about?

Paris Hilton, Michael Jackson, etc.; the list is long of Hollywood celebs renting poor women’s wombs for kids they can afford, but don’t carry.

https://people.com/parents/celebrities-who-have-used-surrogates/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...and yet sex work is legal.

Okie dokie!

Why shouldn’t it be?

Sex work SHOULD be legal. Sex TRAFFICKING should be illegal.


See the difference?

To me, same thing. If people are "renting their bodies" sex vs pregnancy are both that.

[Anonymous]

What if the person carrying the child is doing it as a favor? Like a friend or sibling carrying a child for an infertile couple? Is it still illegal? Its not exploitive then - I would absolutely do this for my sister or SIL or best friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is not benign and is not the answer for infertility.

Correct, no one who has other options just "does" surrogacy. It's a very specific type of female infertility where pregnancies can't be carried to term.

Want to reduce that need / number? Great, ACOG needs to formally recognize the field of reproductive immunology.