Article about surrogacy in The Guardian

I can’t cope with that article. Makes me so angry

Agreed that being able to reproduce is not a right for anybody, never mind your sexual orientation or if you are partnered or not. This is because we have no parthenogenesis, so if someone has the right to reproduce, then another person must somehow be made to participate in this.

I see a global breeder class developing here, with poor women, often in third world countries, being paid to rent out their bodies at some risk for themselves.

And this is also part and parcel of the commercialisation of access to the female body, together with prostitution.

I like the way the article got criticisms in by quoting some social media comments.

This!

It’s the acceptable face of human trafficking. In fact, not just acceptable, presented as the progressive way of doing things.

I mean… in a very real sense, they are exported. Actual human beings, made to order and exported. There’s money to be made in doing so.

There’s no point in euphemising any of it.

Biden should count the babies exported and use them to offset the immigration figures...

Pretty good article, actually, but not in the way the pro surrogacy lobby intended.

Felt like an ad for the surrogacy agency at one point, but you’d have to be really desperate for the money to make babies for entitled pricks like that.

wild that the American surrogate mothers were both having babies for overseas men - presume that’s a circumvention of the men’s national laws?

I also dislike the mention of Adoption, because adoption is/should only be done when it’s the absolute best option for a child, not as a family completion aid.

we see in the US when infant adoption is overly marketised and glorified you get young mum, vulnerable mums being coerced into relinquishing their babies and adoption agencies making profit fro. Adoptions.

'What about adoption? “We consider adoption [to be] a form of volunteering. It is not a way to become parents,” he says.'

Oh, that's nice. Way to invalidate and disrespect adoptive parents and children.

Yes, funny that...and these bellends would almost certainly the same type to be shrieking about trans rights. Although they seem so breathtakingly self-involved, perhaps not..

It’s not discrimination, sunshine, it’s biological reality.

Funny how everyone knows what a woman is when it comes to surrogacy, isn’t it?

I’ve heard it referred to as “social infertility”, but I don’t like that term.

it’s not infertility. It’s basic facts that 2 people of the same sex cannot reproduce together.

I find it offensive when people refer to it as infertility. It's really not and it's offensive to all the heart wrenching treatments people with infertility go through. Not infertility, just male. The lady was spot on.

I’ve seen lack of access to ‘routes to make a family’ for gay couples referred to as “discrimination” in several articles now. It always perplexes me because the reason they can’t have a baby is because they are a same sex couple, not because they are being discriminated against. It’s a reality of reproduction that you need a person of each sex. In fact even a heterosexual couple who wanted to reproduce using someone else’s body would face these same issues, so it’s not a discrimination issue.

Also infertility treatment I guess is a form of health care for people facing infertility due to medical issues. That’s different than not being able to have a baby with the person you want because you are the same sex, and it’s VERY VERY different to being only able to reproduce by using the body/parts of a third person.

I think other routes to making a family are more ethical including linking up with a woman who also wants a baby and would agree to do parents and bring the child up together.

This!!!
This is almost always the case when talking about things like surrogacy and infant adoption in places like the US.

Yes, surrogacy is harmful to the woman, but it's harmful to the baby too. The idea that you can just remove a baby from its mother's arms straight after birth and take it away, without any kind of lasting trauma.

Yes, just seemed to be a lifestyle accoutrement that they were upset they couldn't have.

The baby didn't get a mention except in passing. And after all, it should be centre stage.

The woman having so little space in the article did annoy me

Until I realised the more space you gave the 2 men, the worse and worse they came over until in the final paragraph they were full on MRA.

oh but what about women shouldn’t be an afterthought. The commodification and exploitation of women’s bodies is the headline. The fact that men don’t get what they want is incidental to that.

Sheesh.

And that it came first. It’s very long and there’s a considerable amount of entitled whinging to get through before you get the other side.

thing is, putting the other side first would mean that the entitled whinging looks even more entitled and ridiculous. If you come to
that after being asked to think about women being treated as chattel, it would really hammer home how unbelievable the arguments really are from people who, quite simply, cannot conceive or gestate a child because they are both male.

The sheer gall of those men - being a parent isn't a right! They aren't being discriminated against, they're just bloody male.

The campaigner sounded so on the ball, she was great. A shame the article devoted most of its time to the other side of the argument.