More people will opt just not to have kids.

I'm not taking any morality lessons from Italians or the church. Forced separation and shipping children over to the US as orphans if they were born to unwed mothers. Watch the 60 Minutes segment below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTxc-PxvK7k

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow you’re naive.

I'm not, I'm one of those women with that kind of infertility so I know a lot about it. 99.9% of women with this kind of infertility don't have 150K for a surrogate.

No surrogate is a oId $150,000. Medical and basic expenses are all that is legally allowed.

Your post is garbled, but if you're saying nobody gets paid 150k to do this, you're absolutely wrong. yes they do.

New poster here. Nobody is getting paid 150k to be a surrogate. A couple might pay 150k, yet perhaps 1/3 of that would reach the surrogate. There are advertising fees, legal fees, liability, overhead, salaries, and profit taken out. The receptionist is going to be making more than the woman you're paying to carry your pregnancy and give birth to your child.

Most of Europe is also Roman Catholic and abortion is a mortal sin.

Well, but most of Europe. Maybe most of France and Italy. Certainly not Germany.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Wow you’re naive.

I'm not, I'm one of those women with that kind of infertility so I know a lot about it. 99.9% of women with this kind of infertility don't have 150K for a surrogate.

No surrogate is a oId $150,000. Medical and basic expenses are all that is legally allowed.

Your post is garbled, but if you're saying nobody gets paid 150k to do this, you're absolutely wrong. yes they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t really an issue of progressive or not. There is a just a different conception of human dignity and the role of the market in Europe than the US. In their view it infringes human dignity to allow “renting wombs”. Whereas in the US you tend to believe that people should have the right to make money from their body parts if they want to.

And, in the US there is little thought given to the welfare of the resulting baby, which is also consistent with the US versus Europe. The concern is not just exploitation of women, it’s also exploitation of the baby.

It’s not exploitation of anyone in the US. You should be allowed to carry a child for someone else, if that’s what you want to do. Treating grown women like children and telling them what they can do with their bodies is a scary trend and it’s increasing.

Aw, you're one of those uneducated "sex work is work" pick-mes, aren't you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 doesn't prevent them from adopting. You can be a parent.

Only couples who have been married for 3 (or 4?) years can adopt. Gay marriage is illegal in Italy. Therefore, they cannot be parents.

So your solution is to exploit women?

Why do you want to control what women do with their bodies?

We want to control what MEN can do with OUR bodies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t really an issue of progressive or not. There is a just a different conception of human dignity and the role of the market in Europe than the US. In their view it infringes human dignity to allow “renting wombs”. Whereas in the US you tend to believe that people should have the right to make money from their body parts if they want to.

And, in the US there is little thought given to the welfare of the resulting baby, which is also consistent with the US versus Europe. The concern is not just exploitation of women, it’s also exploitation of the baby.

It’s not exploitation of anyone in the US. You should be allowed to carry a child for someone else, if that’s what you want to do. Treating grown women like children and telling them what they can do with their bodies is a scary trend and it’s increasing.

We get it, you think you’re entitled to buy some other poor impoverished woman’s womb for your personal selfish gain. Disgusting.

Pope Francis has entered the chat.

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 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.

I will believe you next time a rich billionaire woman chooses to be a surrogate.

I have a friend who was a surrogate and she’s not poor. She’s middle class. She was a surrogate for a gay couple and then for a couple where the woman couldn’t carry a baby.

I also have two friends who could onl have children via surrogacy and neither were rich.

If you can’t have your own children, for whatever reason, the path is extremely difficult and expensive. If women are willing to be surrogates and are compensated, more power to them.

No one ever said that there aren't female fools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t really an issue of progressive or not. There is a just a different conception of human dignity and the role of the market in Europe than the US. In their view it infringes human dignity to allow “renting wombs”. Whereas in the US you tend to believe that people should have the right to make money from their body parts if they want to.

And, in the US there is little thought given to the welfare of the resulting baby, which is also consistent with the US versus Europe. The concern is not just exploitation of women, it’s also exploitation of the baby.

It’s not exploitation of anyone in the US. You should be allowed to carry a child for someone else, if that’s what you want to do. Treating grown women like children and telling them what they can do with their bodies is a scary trend and it’s increasing.

We get it, you think you’re entitled to buy some other poor impoverished woman’s womb for your personal selfish gain. Disgusting.

Anonymous wrote:Surrogacy is supremely selfish for the infant and we already know that adopted newborns can experience grief and loss. When an infant is removed from their birth parent(s), even if the adoption is a positive step, the child still experiences separation from the primary caregiver they bonded with in utero.

If you love children so much why are you deliberately hurting them. These babies aren't crying for you but for the woman who gave them birth and their security from the beginning. Selfish and greedy.

No, this is wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It isn’t really an issue of progressive or not. There is a just a different conception of human dignity and the role of the market in Europe than the US. In their view it infringes human dignity to allow “renting wombs”. Whereas in the US you tend to believe that people should have the right to make money from their body parts if they want to.

And, in the US there is little thought given to the welfare of the resulting baby, which is also consistent with the US versus Europe. The concern is not just exploitation of women, it’s also exploitation of the baby.

It’s not exploitation of anyone in the US. You should be allowed to carry a child for someone else, if that’s what you want to do. Treating grown women like children and telling them what they can do with their bodies is a scary trend and it’s increasing.

Surrogacy is supremely selfish for the infant and we already know that adopted newborns can experience grief and loss. When an infant is removed from their birth parent(s), even if the adoption is a positive step, the child still experiences separation from the primary caregiver they bonded with in utero.

If you love children so much why are you deliberately hurting them. These babies aren't crying for you but for the woman who gave them birth and their security from the beginning. Selfish and greedy.

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.

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.

I will believe you next time a rich billionaire woman chooses to be a surrogate.

I have a friend who was a surrogate and she’s not poor. She’s middle class. She was a surrogate for a gay couple and then for a couple where the woman couldn’t carry a baby.

I also have two friends who could onl have children via surrogacy and neither were rich.

If you can’t have your own children, for whatever reason, the path is extremely difficult and expensive. If women are willing to be surrogates and are compensated, more power to them.

The surrogate I know (acquaintance from HS) is also solidly middle class, maybe bumping up against UMC. She had 4 of her own kids young, easy pregnancies, and loved being pregnant. She was a surrogate twice for an infertile couple. She is also very religious and viewed it as a very "easy" thing she could do to help God build families.

What religion?