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.

You make no sense. None of what you describe is relevant to a newborn. So it either matters or it doesn’t to the baby who they bond with.

Newsflash, it doesn’t matter as long as they have someone to bond with. You realize that our species would not have survived and thrived if we were so picky, right?

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.

That seems incredibly generous.

It is, and they do it because they don’t have enough children born into the society. So it makes no sense to not allow surrrogacy.

I offered to my sister to be a surrogate. She wouldn’t hear of it. I wouldn’t have made any money certainly and have no idea how anyone would call that baby manufacturing. I just don’t quite understanding how anyone can support IVF of the one hand but not surrogacy. They are both a means to having a child and a family. I support both BTW.

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.

That seems incredibly generous.

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?

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.

You make no sense. None of what you describe is relevant to a newborn. So it either matters or it doesn’t to the baby who they bond with.

Newsflash, it doesn’t matter as long as they have someone to bond with. You realize that our species would not have survived and thrived if we were so picky, right?

The difference is that in the adoption, the child already exists.

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.

That seems incredibly generous.

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.

You make no sense. None of what you describe is relevant to a newborn. So it either matters or it doesn’t to the baby who they bond with.

Newsflash, it doesn’t matter as long as they have someone to bond with. You realize that our species would not have survived and thrived if we were so picky, right?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Europe is secular. Italy is only slightly less secular.

Hahaha clearly you know boring about Italy or Europe.

18.8% of Italians attend church once a week.

31% of Italians never attend church unless for weddings, funerals, etc

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 don’t even allow newborn puppies to be taken from their mothers because it’s cruel. It is absolute insanity that we are supposed to pretend that a baby yanked from its birth mother moments after birth does not grieve and is not aware of that. Babies recognize the scent, sound, feel, and more of their biological mothers. Yet we are supposed to pretend all of these doesn’t happen to preserve the feelings of adults.

Often the surrogate is not the biological mother. She’s the carrier.

It’s not “absolute insanity.” It’s not cruel.

Do you know any children born from surrogacy or are you just projecting?

To that fetus the carrier is ITS MOTHER!

You’re the one who mentioned biological, which may or may not be the case.

It’s fine to disagree with the practice. It’s another thing to completely stop others from doing it if that’s what they need. Are you against adoption too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 don’t even allow newborn puppies to be taken from their mothers because it’s cruel. It is absolute insanity that we are supposed to pretend that a baby yanked from its birth mother moments after birth does not grieve and is not aware of that. Babies recognize the scent, sound, feel, and more of their biological mothers. Yet we are supposed to pretend all of these doesn’t happen to preserve the feelings of adults.

Often the surrogate is not the biological mother. She’s the carrier.

It’s not “absolute insanity.” It’s not cruel.

Do you know any children born from surrogacy or are you just projecting?

To that fetus the carrier is ITS MOTHER!

You’re the one who mentioned biological, which may or may not be the case.

It’s fine to disagree with the practice. It’s another thing to completely stop others from doing it if that’s what they need. Are you against adoption too?

Adopted babies also grieve for the "carrier" with whom it bonded in utero. Now that women can have babies without being married adoption is getting rarer and rarer. So now Americans steal babies from Russia, China, all over the world like John Roberts stole his children from Ireland.

China’s program is closed. And Americans are definitely not going to Russia right now for adoptions lol.

Your basic point about how international adoptions can be unethical is good. You’re just like 5 years out of date on the particulars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 don’t even allow newborn puppies to be taken from their mothers because it’s cruel. It is absolute insanity that we are supposed to pretend that a baby yanked from its birth mother moments after birth does not grieve and is not aware of that. Babies recognize the scent, sound, feel, and more of their biological mothers. Yet we are supposed to pretend all of these doesn’t happen to preserve the feelings of adults.

Often the surrogate is not the biological mother. She’s the carrier.

It’s not “absolute insanity.” It’s not cruel.

Do you know any children born from surrogacy or are you just projecting?

To that fetus the carrier is ITS MOTHER!

You’re the one who mentioned biological, which may or may not be the case.

It’s fine to disagree with the practice. It’s another thing to completely stop others from doing it if that’s what they need. Are you against adoption too?

Adopted babies also grieve for the "carrier" with whom it bonded in utero. Now that women can have babies without being married adoption is getting rarer and rarer. So now Americans steal babies from Russia, China, all over the world like John Roberts stole his children from Ireland.