news Italy bans international surrogacy

[NoOneDiesFromLove]

5 hours ago, ChooseyLover said:

it's wild how gay couples don't have a legal way to build a family in Italy, since adoption is only allowed to married couples of the opposite sex..

This is insane…. what the hell  Not my third world country being more progressive with LGBT laws (same sex marriage isn't even a thing in Italy um)

[shimind]

Babies should only be born naturally by ******* anything else is against the laws of nature 

[Megan Pete]

7 hours 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.

You don't "buy" children you adopt. You are literally paying for a baby with surrogacy.

 

Having biological children is inherently selfish and NOT a human right. If you want to raise kids you can easily adopt. If you can't love a living breathing human being simply because it doesn't share your DNA then there's bigger issues at play.

[Graves]

I know I was shocked too when I first saw the surrogacy controversy online, but I think a lot of us westerners have a warped view of the practice. We only see it on tv when it's a family friend or a sister offering to kindly carry a child. The reality is a lot different.

 

I feel bad for Italian gays who can't have families, but I think adoption reform is what we should be pushing for rather than surrogacy.

[Space Cowboy]

7 hours ago, Mtjjproducer said:

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

Absolutely. She still carried the baby for 9 months. That bond is bigger than anything else.

[DevilsRollTheDice]

Like most things, there is a more and less ethical route for surrogacy. There are also many women who make the empowered choice to be a surrogate because they want to.  Going through an agency that requires thorough vetting helps this enormously. Obviously not everyone does that because it's considerably more expensive, but the issue isn't black and white or one-size-fits-all. 
 

I find it interesting that many leftists decry surrogacy as an anti-feminist practice but immediately go on to yes queen s*x work and treat it as though it is an empowered decision. Far more women turn to s*x work as a last resort than surrogacy. 

 

At the end of the day, people can make choices about their own bodies. Like all forms of labor, it can be exploitive. It can also be empowered. 

Edited October 18 by DevilsRollTheDice

[Space Cowboy]

7 hours 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. 

Girl… perhaps get educated in the topic before spewing nonsense

[DevilsRollTheDice]

2 hours ago, Megan Pete said:

You don't "buy" children you adopt. You are literally paying for a baby with surrogacy.

 

Having biological children is inherently selfish and NOT a human right. If you want to raise kids you can easily adopt. If you can't love a living breathing human being simply because it doesn't share your DNA then there's bigger issues at play.

It's funny to me that you seem so passionate about being anti-surrogacy and obviously know next to nothing about how the adoption industry is run in the western world. You absolutely "buy" children in private adoption which is how the majority of children are placed in countries like the US. Many anti-adoption advocates are out there. The practice is often incredibly predatory and only exists because families don't have the resources/support to stay together. Instead of offering that support, the solution is often private adoption. 

[DevilsRollTheDice]

9 hours ago, Communion said:

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.

I somewhat agree with this, but I also think it's an example of intellectualizing an issue and prioritizing theory over people. I think the far bigger similarity between the two, regardless of this product/tool framing, is that many women who partake in surrogacy and sex work feel they have no other choice. There are also women who make an empowered decision to participate in both because they want to. It's not black and white. 

 

While we're at it, it's not so dissimilar from any exploitative labor practice that uses human bodies as tools to produce a product that isn't their own. All forms of labor can be exploitative. Most of the labor that western society is built upon is exploitative. For surrogacy, there are ways to sharply minimize this impact. If you're willing to wait/pay, there are many agencies that throughly vet surrogates to ensure they're living stable lives and that they don't *need* the extra income. In those cases, I believe the process is more altruistic but still mutually beneficial for both parties. 

 

It's definitely a complex issue. I can also see the argument that going for the more expensive route both cuts off the opportunity of family building for many prospective parents and also shuts out the women who would benefit most from the money. For those who want to take things like surrogacy/sex work away with no tangible plan to replace them with something else, are you really helping the people who, by their own determination, need that income? 

 

That's where I think theory often trumps reality in these conversations. When these practices are outlawed, governments aren't passing things like universal basic income or more comprehensive social welfare in tandem. Obviously they should be, but they aren't. "We saved you, queen! Now you can starve but in an empowered way "

Edited October 18 by DevilsRollTheDice

[Marianah Adkins]

I think the ban on surrogacy should only be applied to those done abroad, that's really where exploitation becomes an issue.

 

The one within the country is fine. Women also seek surrogacy due to infertility. 

[karron0624]

16 hours ago, Space Cowboy said:

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.

You do realize that there are a healthy amount of surrogates who contradict your exact statement. Including the "never seeing the child again." Most surrogates I know still have a long lastting relationship with the primary familes.

 

Your comment also ignores all the other facts about surrogacy to say "they find a cheap improvised women. For example (i'm using the US and Mexico as the primary countries since those are my countries)

 

1. The surrogates in these countries have to have already carried a baby to full term, and can carry no more than five total children to participate. (Well Hatch representative told us 7, but they are out there). Can not have had any miscarriages in the past 5 years, and cannot have any family or medical history that will lead to endangering the health of the mother (i.e my sister wanted to carry my husbands child with a different donor egg, but she isnt allowed to be out surrogate because she gets "pregnant diabetes."

2. Surrogates have to prove that they have the income and financial stability to cover 13 months (9-10 months for carrying and 3-4 months recovery period). If they don't have financial stability they cant work with surrogacy agencies in either country (but i will defer that people who truly want to avoid this would go to Columbia, but then that carries a bunch of legal risks as is which moves to the next poont)

3. Legal issues: I'll start off by saying surrogacy is not legal in every state in Mexico or the US. (And Columbia has some weird laws around it which is not the worth and hassel IMO to go for a cheaper surrogacy.) In states where it is not Legal, the surrogate does not have to sign away her rights to the child. Even in states where it is Legal, the mother will have to wait a minimum of three days before she can officially sign away her rights, even if the egg is not hers. In Mexico, you have to wait the full week and then deal with all thr USCIS paperwork. Colmubia i was told was a two week waiting period? But i cant confirm that, and there is a lot of moving parts.

4. Costs. I think a lot of yall are behind on the costs of surrogates. Surrogats start at 35k in the USA if you havr never performed the service before, and go up to $110k for someone who is on their third service. Full expected breakdown for everyone is below:

 

Eggs: 5k (if you are using the surrogate) to 60k is the highest i've seen.

Surrogate: 35k for first time to 110k for experiences.

Hospital bills: 30k to 60k (insurance does not cover)

Legal: 25k - 35k or 60k if in Utah (and adoption is so expensive in this state to for no damn reason)

Agency: 10k - 25k

Court Cost: 5k - 10k

Post-partum cover for the Mother (required for US contracts but not required for Mexican contracts i believe) : 20k - 100k

 

Total: 110k - 425k Columbia costs are advertised as 80k-130k, but im not sure full details about that. Obviously this is for commercial transactional surrogacy. This isnt family members getting a turkey baster and hoping for the best🤣.

 

5. In the states, every state* allows a surrogate mother to terminate the pregnancy. *subject to that states abortion law. Surrogacy contracts should also have stipulations that a family cannot come after the surrogate for any incurred costs due to the termination of a pregnancy or due to a miscarriage. (I.e the reason health and past miscarriages a looked at, and you're required to have successfully carried your own child). That language should be im there to protect the mother from all situations, but also gives her access to terminate should something have to a the parents. I think the case on point for this comes out of Cali? where one of the fathers dies during the pregnancy, the other father did not want the child because it reminded him of his husband, and the mother wanted to keep the baby. Cali court ruled that the child was biologically the mothers because the child was not born and the mother had not terminated her rights (i believe it was the mothers egg as well, but forgive me, i read that case 3 or 4 years ago).

 

i say all this to say, I understand your point about how surrogacy could be seen as trafficking. And i understand how there are potentially uneducated people in the world who dont understand the ramifications. However, after my own research, and going down the path of surrogacy vs adoption, in the US and Mexico, the people who participate in commercial surrogacy in those two countries are not being "abused" or "utilized" in the way you frame it. Hell the surrogate we almost went with before we swapped to adoption was very specific, she only wanted to give gay couples their first child, and would not do it for anyone who had adopted or had any other children.

 

Unfortunately we already had two failed adoptions (first one mother kept the child, and second one mother terminated the pregnancy because she was facing life threatening issues, and baby was too young to be viable), but third time is the charm!

[heckinglovato]

18 hours ago, DevilsRollTheDice said:

I somewhat agree with this, but I also think it's an example of intellectualizing an issue and prioritizing theory over people. I think the far bigger similarity between the two, regardless of this product/tool framing, is that many women who partake in surrogacy and sex work feel they have no other choice. There are also women who make an empowered decision to participate in both because they want to. It's not black and white. 

 

While we're at it, it's not so dissimilar from any exploitative labor practice that uses human bodies as tools to produce a product that isn't their own. All forms of labor can be exploitative. Most of the labor that western society is built upon is exploitative. For surrogacy, there are ways to sharply minimize this impact. If you're willing to wait/pay, there are many agencies that throughly vet surrogates to ensure they're living stable lives and that they don't *need* the extra income. In those cases, I believe the process is more altruistic but still mutually beneficial for both parties. 

 

It's definitely a complex issue. I can also see the argument that going for the more expensive route both cuts off the opportunity of family building for many prospective parents and also shuts out the women who would benefit most from the money. For those who want to take things like surrogacy/sex work away with no tangible plan to replace them with something else, are you really helping the people who, by their own determination, need that income? 

 

That's where I think theory often trumps reality in these conversations. When these practices are outlawed, governments aren't passing things like universal basic income or more comprehensive social welfare in tandem. Obviously they should be, but they aren't. "We saved you, queen! Now you can starve but in an empowered way "

In this thread I went from never hearing about this ever being an issue (and thus supporting surrogacy), to being opposed to surrogacy as it exploits women, to then being pro-surrogacy again because impoverished women need it and aren't provided any better alternatives 

[The7thStranger]

Italy has absolutely crossed a line with this, and I'm disgusted with the European Union for allowing it to happen.

[Dialamba]

On 10/18/2024 at 4:00 AM, 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.

 

 

How do they exploit vulnerable women who know the risks and still want to carry a child  

And adoption is so much worse because you pay literally pay to get a child. 

Unless you come with facts this is is bullshit and only projection. 

[chessguy99]

6 hours ago, The7thStranger said:

Italy has absolutely crossed a line with this, and I'm disgusted with the European Union for allowing it to happen.

The EU considers surrogacy to be a form of human trafficking. They don't prohibit it, but recommend member nations keep tight control over it to avoid the human trafficking aspects, many countries just ban it.  Some countries only allow what is called altruistic surrogacy, where a family member or friend is a volunteer surrogate. BTW, Italy is only the latest to do this, France, Germany and Spain have restrictive laws for those seeking surrogacy abroad.

Edited October 19 by chessguy99

[The7thStranger]

  

7 minutes ago, chessguy99 said:

The EU considers surrogacy to be a form of human trafficking. They don't prohibit it, but recommend member nations keep tight control over it to avoid the human trafficking aspects. many countries just ban it.  Some countries only allow what is called altruistic surrogacy, where a family member or friend is a volunteer surrogate. BTW, Italy is only the latest to do this, France, Germany and Spain have restrictive laws for those seeking surrogacy abroad.

You need to look at this far beyond the bounds of surrogacy, because that isn't what this is about. This is about the current Italian government enacting a policy that extends beyond its own borders, essentially governing its citizens (myself included) while they are on the soil of other nations. This is not just a slippery slope; this is a cliff. What's to stop the government from then saying that homosexuality is a crime and now any citizen who engages in homosexual acts abroad is now a criminal under Italian law? This is the same garbage that Russia pulls.

 

Please don't get bogged down in the surrogacy argument. This is fascism, clean and simple. And the European Union, with all its posturing, has done nothing to protect those who will be put in danger by this repugnant policy.

Edited October 19 by The7thStranger

[Thuggin]

I don't know what my position on surrogacy is, but it's funny how the left (usually the radfem sect of the left to be fair) is often just as guilty as the right when it comes to infantilizing women

 

"We need to protect vulnerable helpless women because they can't be trusted to make the right choices on their own!"

The thing is the same arguments they throw against surrogacy are used to rail against adoption by same-sex couples too.

 

"Adoption should be illegal because gay couples rob these children of a mother who would otherwise care for them if she had the means to. It treats parenthood as transactional, as just buying a baby. It's selfish; you're not entitled to other people's children. It's a privilege, not a right!" I guess at least the left supports a robust social safety net; conservatives would rather the kids die of starvation than get adopted by a gay couple.

[DiabeticGrandpa]

On 10/17/2024 at 5:36 PM, Arrows said:

You don't think women should be able to do whatever they want with their own bodies?

What a dumb comment. 

[Anthinos]

We as a society have to stop banning everything and telling everyone what they can and cannot do with their bodies. Things like abortion or surrogacy are a personal matter and the state should not interfere.

I also think the argument that it goes against nature is just weird. Our modern life is many things, but certainly not close to nature. And there's nothing wrong with that. AI, robots, artificial wombs... all these things are a reality or will one day become a reality and change humanity forever.

I honestly don't understand why a country like Italy has such a problem with it. Italy has low birth rates and a dwindling population. I don't think that bans in this area make sense.

[ZeroSuitBritney]

Disgusting. 
 

should we genocide them? By some ATRL users logic, it's acceptable because they are getting more regressive when it comes to gay rights