Pope Francis calls for universal ban on surrogacy

[shockeditellyou]

https://www.thejournal.ie/pope-francis-calls-for-universal-ban-surrogacy-6267108-Jan2024/

Good for him. Encouragingly, the comments I’ve seen on another site where this was posted are almost entirely supportive of banning surrogacy, which I wasn’t expecting.

@OchonAgusOchonOh & @BigGlassHouseWithAView Get it now but one last question is the surrogate mother. I agree that it's more often a destitute woman who is offering her womb, however, if she is doing it because it's the only source of income within her sphere, is she still being abused? perhaps to not do surrogacy will lead her along even more dangerous paths?

Really?
Where do you think the baby farms are... in a rich suburb of white Stockholm, in an eco centre in wealthy mega rich New York or in impoverished India where renting a woman & paying to rip a newly born sentient human baby away from the only security they have known is big business. As a PP said puppies and kittens are afforded more rights. Fucking disgusting practice with no regard for the trauma on the baby or on the woman. The women do not do this for altruistic reasons they have no choice. Or they could sell you a kidney or be a live host for some other graft or transplant. Having a child is not a right, as long as they all consent?

Why are people so stupid about the concept of hearing views we agree with from people whose other views we might strongly disagree with? We would all no doubt be able to find at least a couple of opinions we share with virtually any human being (including murderers and rapists).

I'm an atheist, pro-choice and definitely not a fan of the Catholic church. But the Pope has a massive amount of reach and influence. If he helped to spread and popularise a view that I think is good for the world, why wouldn't I be glad?

@AllProperTeaIsTheft Referring to such concerns as "being stupid" doesn't suggest you want a real discussion but anyway... personally I will always stop and think if I find I share strong views with someone who represents an outdated, misogynistic, harmful organisation. There is nothing stupid about pausing to examine your motivations.

In this case I know I'm opposed to surrogacy for very different reasons to the pope. I care about the babies, exploited surrogates, and bodily autonomy. He doesn't care about those, especially the latter.

You could also argue that "voluntary" slavery should be allowed as at least those enslaved are fed and housed. If they were not enslaved, perhaps they would end up without shelter or food.

What do you think? Is it better to enslave people to ensure they are fed and housed or are there certain things that should not be allowed?

Equally, you could argue that people should be allowed to sell their organs as otherwise they could end up in a worse situation. After all, you only need one kidney and you can easily spare a bit of a liver. Should we allow that or are there certain things that should not be allowed?

We can use the same argument for prostitution, child labour and many other "occupations". Take your pick.

The mere fact that you can’t sell a kidney or a bit of liver says it all really. That’s unethical, because of the risks to the donor.

yet babies can be sold. An no one seems to give a shit about the medical risks to the surrogate. From Life changing birth trauma, risk of death or significant haemorrhage, hysterectomy, through gestational diabetes, and eclampsia, to minor things like piles, tears, stretch marks. I would think the statistics for birth injuries and long term consequences are far higher than the risks of a single operation to remove a kidney for donation.

@OchonAgusOchonOh it's a very valid question should we be allowed to trade in human organs, what about blood, what about bone marrow, what about donor eggs, donor sperm? Ethically you need to prevent exploitation but if the adult is consenting is it really a problem? If the surrogate decided to give the baby up for adoption they could also go at birth which is favoured over abortion by the Catholic Church.

Blood and bone marrow are not sold. They are donated voluntarily. The risks associated with their donation are tiny.

Egg donation, particularly paid donation is utterly unethical and should be banned. The risks to the donor are high and, in the case of much paid donation, are glossed over. Again, it is financially vulnerable women who are exploited, meaning it is not true consent. Sperms donation has no risks to the donor so I have no issue with that.

I don't understand your point about adoption. If someone is acting as a surrogate, then the intent is always to hand the child over at birth. If you are simply comparing surrogacy and adoption, I have already addressed that, as have other posters.

The position of the Catholic church is based on their attitude towards life. They see adoption as a less bad option than abortion. I don't necessarily agree as I believe it is the woman's right to choose how to proceed with a pregnancy.

People "consent" to all sorts of batshit stuff for all kinds of really batshit reasons. Like the people who "consent" to being eaten by cannibals.

We rightly recognise that there are some acts where the victim's "consent" cannot render an act ethical and is irrelevant to whether the perpetrator should be criminalised. The sale of organs and the creation of new humans to order are two activities that should be illegal regardless of anyone involved giving "consent".

Have just seen this post. Good question. I think the same for slavery but believe it should be regulated in some way. If the difference is voluntary regulated slavery v abject poverty, homelessness, starvation and death. I'm on the fence with both surrogacy and slavery as you describe.
I have a friend who used a surrogate and also seen lots of poverty and know that both people providing the service jumped at the 'opportunity'.

So rather than helping those in need, you'd rather exploit them? Lovely.

And no, the choice is never voluntary, regulated slavery or abject poverty, starvation or death.

voluntary regulated slavery

There can be no such thing.

1. Slavery, by definition, involves treating the enslaved person as property, de facto or in law.
2. Consent has to be revokable during the period for which it applies, otherwise it's not consent. Example: when I'm giving blood, I can ask the technicians to stop at any time during the blood draw.
3. Property cannot give nor withdraw consent.

If someone were to "agree" to becoming a slave, they would become as property and not be able to withdraw consent, hence the initial "agreement" they gave cannot be consent. No amount of laws to require that slave owners treat their slaves reasonably (e.g. banning the murder or beating of slaves) alters the nature of the slave as property, in the same way that animal welfare laws don't make a pet dog not be property.

You might be thinking of various other arrangements in which labour is exchanged for food and shelter directly or indirectly, such as indentured servitude and employment. These are not slavery because there is always a legal means of buying your way out, even if in practice you cannot afford it.

I question the humanity of someone who, in apparent seriousness, thinks that legalising slavery might be an acceptable solution to poverty.

I'm not particularly agreeing with the pope about women's rights. I'm agreeing with him about the rights of the newborn babies. From the perspective of the baby the only mother is the woman who was pregnant.

Surrogacy is forced pregnancy, just like forcing women to carry a baby to term by denying them abortions. Untill the pope can get that through his thick skull, he is nothing more than a hypocrite.

In the UK we have some of the best laws when it comes to surrogacy and safeguards against exploitation.
Its the rest of the world that needs to catch up, but it does not mean we should ban it.

“The rights of the unborn baby” is exactly the same language used by anti-abortion.
It is up to the mother to decide what to do with the baby. It’s not mine or your decision to make. It’s not your place to “think/protect her unborn baby”.

I agree, surrogacy is not ideal and there are studies about its effect on children.

But so is growing up poor! So is growing up with a disabled parent, or 100s of other reasons. All will have some negative effect on children.
But are we going to stop those people from having children?
Lets think of the babies

I didn't say unborn. I said newborn.

I disagree, I think there should be a complete ban, and also a ban on the ‘importation’ of children born abroad through surrogacy. (This already exists in some countries).

What I also find interesting is the hostility to actual safeguards from those who want surrogacy.
For example, I think it is reasonable that surrogacy legislation prohibits going abroad to use surrogates who have fewer safeguards than those in the UK.
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/dec/09/an-english-couple-a-ukrainian-surrogate-and-a-baby-the-extraordinary-story-of-how-war-united-two-unlikely-families
Interesting quote “She [commissioning mother] had no illusions about the surrogate’s motivation: of course, it came down to money.”

I think it is reasonable that sex offenders should never have access to surrogacy.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/gammy-father-child-abuse-convictions-investigation
Which means there needs to be some sort of pre-vetting or checking system.
I think that there should be a maximum number of children per family and per surrogate, and also a maximum of one embryo per cycle.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-12666255/I-22-children-age-26-born-space-year-thanks-surrogacy-wont-stop-100.html

When you look at the problems which we already see, and the hostility of the pro-surrogacy groups to be serious about dealing with those problems then it just demonstrates they have nothing of value to add to the protecting the child or the pregnant women.

International surrogacy has grown into a huge, financially successful, world-wide business. But more and more countries are realising that poor women in their countries are being exploited as brood mares and babies bought and sold, and are banning financial surrogacy.

Many are concerned at this growth in what is international baby trafficking, with little regulation.

Last year the Law Commission quietly published proposals to update the existing laws on surrogacy. Currently, when a baby is born to a surrogate mother, the mother remains the legal parent until a legal process, a parental order, has been completed. Under the Law Commission proposals, the intended parents would become the baby’s legal parents from birth.

The new proposals also include reducing the time the surrogate mother has to change her mind, and allowing women who have never given birth to become surrogates.

Many are concerned that the proposed change will shift rights away from the surrogate mother. Many organisations lobbying for reform also have a vested commercial interest in liberalising surrogacy laws.

Some organisations that advocate for the rights of ‘intended parents’ are lobbying NHS Trusts directly to change guidelines to enable ‘intended parents’ to attend ante-natal appointments and be present at the labour and on maternity wards.

In the UK, surrogate mothers can be paid expenses only, up to some £30k, a huge and even life-changing amount of money to a poor woman.

The internet is awash with pictures of happy folk with their new surrogate babies, many of them gay couples, many ‘celebrities’, and some single men.

Obviously gay couples have every right to adopt or acquire surrogate babies. But single men (and possibly women) are often shown acquiring babies from places like Mexico. Are we as a society prepared to accept that babies can be bought and sold in this way, usually from the poorer, developing world, with little regulation?

In one recent case it was alleged that the commissioning parents had intentionally left a baby who has Down's syndrome in Thailand, while taking his non-disabled twin sister home to Australia. A court later ruled the child had not been abandoned, although it emerged that the commissioning father had previous convictions for child sex offences, playing into wider concerns over the welfare of surrogate children.

Ukraine’s surrogacy arrangements have been referred to as baby farms and factories and some countries have banned international surrogacy after local scandals, exploiting poor women.

@MrsJellybee Currently, when a baby is born to a surrogate mother in the UK, the mother remains the legal parent until a legal process, a parental order, has been completed.

Some organisations that advocate for the rights of ‘intended parents’ are lobbying NHS Trusts directly to change guidelines to enable ‘intended parents’ to attend ante-natal appointments and be present at the labour and on maternity wards.

When I was talking about how surrogacy takes away the rights of the mother over her own body, this is the thin of the wedge. The only person who gets a say in who is the birth suite is the mother giving birth. Likewise, if the pregnancy causes health risks, only the mother should decide (within the current abortion law) whether to stay pregnant or abort.

There’s a fine line here.

Is any process that exploits people okay? No.
However not all surrogacy is an exploitation.

Lots of women cannot have children naturally and may turn to various methods to have one.

Is it better for infertile women who want to be excellent mothers to achieve this via surrogacy than perhaps someone who can get pregnant easily but is an abhorrent parent? In my view yes.

It is about the child being loved and safe above all else.

Would we want to stop adoption too because the child isn’t with their biological mother?

It should be about tightening the legislation to make sure everyone involved is protected and it’s not purely a monetary exchange.

The choice is not between infertile women who want to be excellent mothers achieving this via surrogacy and someone who can get pregnant easily but is an abhorrent parent.

The choice is between:
1). an infertile woman exploiting a vulnerable woman and commissioning, and then removing, a baby from the mother it has known during gestation and whose voice, heartbeat etc it recognises, and

2. the infertile woman accepting she is infertile and perhaps looking at adoption. At least with adoption the baby, who already exists, is being removed to the better of the available options.

Would we want to stop adoption too because the child isn’t with their biological mother?

Adoption is about finding suitable replacement parents for a child whose parents can no longer care for him. It's not about making babies to order. It's analogous to the difference between getting a dog from the RSPCA and getting a dog from a puppy mill.

That's it exactly.