news Italy bans international surrogacy

[Arrows]

5 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

It's not a choice made out of freedom, it's one made out of desperation. Without the economic pressures forcing them into this situation, surrogacy would not exist.

That's just not true. I've personally know women who were wealthy and privileged who chose to do surrogacy. 

[Space Cowboy]

Just now, Arrows said:

That's just not true. I've personally know women who were wealthy and privileged who chose to do surrogacy. 

Stop being obtuse. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't disprove the larger reality. I don't know how much truth there is to your comment, since lying on the internet is so easy, but even if you allegedly know a few wealthy women who chose for some reasons to participate in surrogacy, putting their lives at risk doing so , that doesn't negate the fact that the industry preys on vulnerable women who are driven mainy by financial desperation.

[TheArgonaut]

Why is Italy always *that* one european country going backwards? Like 

[KillingYourCareer]

The law cannot be enforced, so good luck with that

[DAP]

You don't really need to look very far for data that highlight exploitation in surrogacy. The best indicator is the cost of the procedure (tens of thousands in Europe to hundreds of thousands in the US) vs the pay offered to "labor" surrogates (literal minimum wage, undoubtedly worse in the non-western countries which is what this is about). Some of yall need to be so fr, ordinary gay couples can't afford surrogacy and do you think a typical rich woman would agree to lend her body for a service that would pay her no more than 40K?  A poor woman absolutely would though, and this coercion is the problem. 

Edited October 18 by DAP

[Vixen Eyes]

a lot of ****** takes here

Surrogacy is not human trafficking. Adoption might as well be human trafficking in that case.  

People use surrogacy because they are infertile and literally cannot have kids.

[shimind]

Good Renting a womb is one of the worst business. It should be banned. Those that want kids but can't have of their own should either adopt or just live their life without a kid. We already have enough people on this earth. 

[shimind]

4 minutes ago, Vixen Eyes said:

a lot of ****** takes here

Surrogacy is not human trafficking. Adoption might as well be human trafficking in that case.  

People use surrogacy because they are infertile and literally cannot have kids.

Then they should Adopt or deal with the flaw that their body has. 

[Loca]

Surrogacy is ******* evil. Well done, Italy 

[Communion]

2 hours ago, Pepo said:

The point is that all women should be free to do whatever they want with their body. This is the whole purpose of democracy.

I do think it's interesting having to navigate this and be questioned and challenged on the ideas of it.

 

My initial reaction would be to follow the liberal idea - that it's a form of bodily autonomy. And I think it would be hard to square away wanting to decriminalize or legalize sex work as a form of helping and defending sex workers, as I would feel, but then criminalize surrogacy, for example. 

 

But then, there are arguments that do feel compelling, particularly on the issue of exploitation. If what you said is true, then the woman could also.. just do it for free? Surrogacy indicates a commercial transaction. Nothing can stop a cis woman from willingly and happily helping someone have a child for free and without commercialization. 

 

If then the woman wouldn't do it without being paid... is it then actually an act of willingness? Of "wanting" to do it? 

 

It's also not a perfect 1:1 with sex work in terms of finding a defense. Sex work sees the product be one's body and thus the issue of bodily autonomy is super present when criminalizing it. In surrogacy, a woman's body is not the product, but a tool in which to create a product - a human being once born - to then sell. What if people sold their already born children on a similar kind of marketplace? The reframing it as a form of human trafficking makes it harder to defend.

 

Whatever someone feels, specifically targeting the imbalance of Westerners seeking out international sellers (disproportionately from poorer countries) would be an easy win that those wanting to stigmatize surrogacy can get under their belt. If feminists in Italy found it to genuinely be a huge issue that needs addressing, one would think they would at least at the same time fight back on the restrictions on gay couples to adopt since such would risk delegitimizing their movement as homophobic.

[JC.]

27 minutes ago, shimind said:

Then they should Adopt or deal with the flaw that their body has. 

What about gay couples? I don't think they are allowed to adopt in Italy. 

[Draper.]

I wasn't gonna write in here because this topic already became a sh*tshow in the Drag Race España thread, but then I saw @Space Cowboy had every right point covered. Thank you. 

[Vixen Eyes]

1 hour ago, shimind said:

Then they should Adopt or deal with the flaw that their body has. 

If surrogacy is trafficking then so is adoption. 

[Space Cowboy]

1 hour ago, Vixen Eyes said:

People use surrogacy because they are infertile and literally cannot have kids.

Having kids is not a right. No one is entitled to a child, especially by exploiting impoverished women and using them as human incubators.

 

5 minutes ago, Vixen Eyes said:

If surrogacy is trafficking then so is adoption. 

??? Equating surrogacy with adoption is completely absurd. Adoption provides homes for children who already exist and need care, while surrogacy treats women's bodies like commodities and creates children on demand for the highest bidder.

 

Adoption addresses an existing need, while surrogacy creates a market where wealthy people can exploit vulnerable women for their own selfishness.

 

 

Edited October 18 by Space Cowboy

[Pikachoo]

3 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

 

I watched a video some time ago that deeply affected me. It showed a surrogate giving birth, crying out and desperately pleading to hold the baby she had carried for nine months. However, she wasn't allowed to. The child was taken from her immediately after birth, and she will likely never see that baby again. How is that not traumatazing? How is that even legal? 

 

Adoption exist. There are zero reasons to use surrogacy besides own selfishness. Surrogacy cheapens the value of human life and turns motherhood into a business transaction

 

It's definitely not for everyone. but there's stories of sisters or mothers carrying a loved one's baby because they couldn't have children for whatever reason. I think that's a beautiful thing. Or Kandi from Real Housewives who developed a great friendship with her surrogate and still keep in touch

[Space Cowboy]

1 minute ago, Pikachoo said:

It's definitely not for everyone. but there's stories of sisters or mothers carrying a loved one's baby because they couldn't have children for whatever reason. I think that's a beautiful thing. Or Kandi from Real Housewives who developed a great friendship with her surrogate and still keep in touch

 

I mean… I wouldn't oppose a system of voluntary surrogacy where no payment or profit is allowed. Only expenses related to the pregnancy would be covered, and the woman would have the right to change her mind and terminate the pregnancy, keep the baby if she chose, or at least have the option to be part of the child's life. The woman's claim to the baby would always take priority.

 

Creating children on demand shouldn't be a market. Women and children should never be treated as commodities or products to be bought and sold. 

[Mtjjproducer]

12 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

 

I mean… I wouldn't oppose a system of voluntary surrogacy where no payment or profit is allowed. Only expenses related to the pregnancy would be covered, and the woman would have the right to change her mind and terminate the pregnancy, keep the baby if she chose, or at least have the option to be part of the child's life. The woman's claim to the baby would always take priority.

 

Creating children on demand shouldn't be a market. Women and children should never be treated as commodities or products to be bought and sold. 

So what if that woman carrying the baby didn't provide the egg do you think they should still get to keep the baby…

[Vixen Eyes]

42 minutes ago, Space Cowboy said:

Having kids is not a right. No one is entitled to a child, especially by exploiting impoverished women and using them as human incubators.

 

??? Equating surrogacy with adoption is completely absurd. Adoption provides homes for children who already exist and need care, while surrogacy treats women's bodies like commodities and creates children on demand for the highest bidder.

 

Adoption addresses an existing need, while surrogacy creates a market where wealthy people can exploit vulnerable women for their own selfishness.

 

 

Surrogacy in the states isn't up for auction lol it's either a family member like a sister or a best friend offering to carry the baby. 

While I do understand your viewpoint in ACTUAL trafficking, not every case of surrogacy is against the wish of the surrogate for money. Not everything is transactionalised. 

[teresaguidice]

45 minutes ago, Pikachoo said:

It's definitely not for everyone. but there's stories of sisters or mothers carrying a loved one's baby because they couldn't have children for whatever reason. I think that's a beautiful thing.

that's not commercial surrogacy and is extremely small share of all surrogacies 

[teresaguidice]

4 minutes ago, Vixen Eyes said:

Surrogacy in the states isn't up for auction lol it's either a family member like a sister or a best friend offering to carry the baby. 

 

no it isn't  

[gm4567]

1 hour ago, Space Cowboy said:

Having kids is not a right. No one is entitled to a child, especially by exploiting impoverished women and using them as human incubators.

 

??? Equating surrogacy with adoption is completely absurd. Adoption provides homes for children who already exist and need care, while surrogacy treats women's bodies like commodities and creates children on demand for the highest bidder.

 

Adoption addresses an existing need, while surrogacy creates a market where wealthy people can exploit vulnerable women for their own selfishness.

 

 

I mean while concerns about exploitation in surrogacy are valid the desire to have children is a fundamental aspect of personal autonomy and freedom. Denying this as a "right" oversimplifies complex issues. Instead of dismissing parenthood, the focus should be on regulating surrogacy to ensure it is ethical, consensual & fair. Many women choose to become surrogates voluntarily and their autonomy should be respected. I think addressing exploitation in surrogacy practices can be achieved without denying people the right to become commercial surrogates or pursue parenthood.

I totally agree with you that the surrogate mother should be able to retain custody of the child in a shared arrangement with the intended parents should she choose not to sign away her parental rights or terminate the pregnancy when she wants regardless of whatever commercial arrangement has been arranged.




 

Edited October 18 by gm4567

[Vixen Eyes]

27 minutes ago, teresaguidice said:

no it isn't  

I've lived on the east coast my entire life and I've only ever heard positive things about surrogacy. Nobody has ever mentioned it being Amy form of human trafficking

[brutal]

Support the outcome, don't support the principle behind it.

[teresaguidice]

33 minutes ago, Vixen Eyes said:

I've lived on the east coast my entire life and I've only ever heard positive things about surrogacy. Nobody has ever mentioned it being Amy form of human trafficking

ok that's great but you obviously haven't delved very deeply into this topic if you think all or most surrogacy is done by sisters and best friends in the united states  

[Rep2000]

5 hours ago, Antisocialites said:

Worst person you know made a great point.

But honey, you made 0 great point.