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.

No it’s about recognising that some people may be biologically able to have children but be incompetent as parents vs infertile people who may be wonderful parents but physically unable to have a child without assistance.

The point being it should be about the child being loved and cared for appropriately.

Not all surrogacy is exploitation and to deem it so is a narrow viewpoint.

Plus narrative like “the baby is ripped away from their mother” is an attempt to make the process sound extremely emotive Instead of giving a balanced view.

I know someone who was a surrogate to her very close friend, the parents are wonderful there was no money exchanged. The surrogate remains in contact and the child has grown up in a wonderful environment.

Would I want that for any child vs those that may be born and remain with biological parents who are neglectful, abusive or perhaps just not great. Absolutely.

Would I want that for any child vs those that may be born and remain with biological parents who are neglectful, abusive or perhaps just not great. Absolutely.

But why are you comparing adoption with surrogacy? They both involve children being brought up by someone who didn't give birth to them, but that's where the similarities end.

There are similarities between the two on the as some adoptions take place at the time the baby is delivered due to the biological parents already being a known safeguarding issue. So still involving a newborn.

The worse aspect of adoption is sometimes the child is much older and so removed from an environment which whilst may be neglectful etc they are used to in some way and have to adapt from.

Both scenarios relate to non biological parents raising the child.

This thread makes out surrogacy is some barbaric enterprise. It’s a flawed argument.

Well yes Bettedaviseyes111 but the choice is never whether a specific baby is adopted or born from surrogacy. They are completely different scenarios. Adoption is not ideal, but sometimes necessary. Why create that situation on purpose?

Because what we’re talking about here is not only women, usually poor women, but also a largely unregulated trade in babies, in human beings.

But what about the surrogacy that isn’t done by poor women being exploited in a monetary exchange?

You are only discussing one side of a very complicated scenario and making an assumption all surrogate mothers are being coerced which simply is not the case.

Does the Pope have lived experience of infertility, pregnancy, birth, motherhood or surrogacy?
No.
So essentially he is being an armchair critic on a subject he has no experience of.

Should women be exploited or coerced into surrogacy - No.

Is that the case for all surrogates - also No.

So why are people who profit from surrogacy so so hostile to regulation to avoid the disasters that have already happened?

or even what’s actually wrong with a blanket ban, saying that the safe guarding risks are too high. Are we as a society not even entitled to discuss just saying No?

Yes society is entitled to discuss it. But discuss it in a balanced manner with input from those who have lived either the bad or good experiences of it.

Legislation probably should be tightened I’m not disagreeing. However I am saying some of the posts on here are not entirely informed.

even what’s actually wrong with a blanket ban, saying that the safe guarding risks are too high

That's basically my stance.

The number of surrogacies that do not involve poor women being exploited in a monetary exchange is miniscule. The vast majority of surrogacies are commercial.

People looking for surrogates generally want a commercial arrangement, preferably where the surrogate is tied in to a legal contract.

And your statistics on this “vast majority” are from where? Define “commercial” … as in a monetary exchange?

What if the woman is willingly being a surrogate, has no desire to be a mother herself, but does wish for something else that the money enables i.e further education. Do you still consider that exploitation?

In any subject there will be variations.

By all means have the conversation but give consideration to both ends of the scale, don’t make sweeping statements based on one narrative.

Undoubtedly as with anything else there may well be a need for tighter legislation etc.

https://brilliantbeginnings.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Parliamentary-briefing-paper-2020.pdf

The report, written by a surrogacy agency who makes its money from surrogacy, includes: There is a significant shortage of UK surrogates.

Many parents prefer to go abroad because of a legal certainty and availability of surrogates through agencies.

There are no clear numbers for surrogacies but they estates 500+, up from 50 in 2008, due to the increase international commercial surrogacy.

What if the woman is willingly being a surrogate, has no desire to be a mother herself, but does wish for something else that the money enables i.e further education. Do you still consider that exploitation?

Yes, that is exploitation. IVF with donor egg is significantly more risky than a natural pregnancy. A woman's life is being put at risk because she is economically disadvantaged.

You are right, there is another side to surrogacy. My main concern is the fact that it’s become a huge, money-making, unregulated, international trade, fronted by many commercial agencies.

And while there’s rightly a lot of talk about the women involved, there’s less focus on this new trade in babies, in human beings.

We read, for example, of a US case where a man has been charged after posting online about buying a baby in Mexico to sexually abuse. (I can’t vouch for the source of this story, though.) But we now see regular proud posts by single men who have acquired babies in South America. Not all single men are child-abusers, obviously, but this business needs to be far more tightly regulated to protect children.

Just had a "fridge logic" moment.

allowing women who have never given birth to become surrogates

So the surrogate mother could have no experience of how her body responds to pregnancy, so no idea whether she will suffer hyperemesis gravidarum, post-partum psychosis, pre-eclampsia or any of the other "fun" complications that can make pregnancy utter misery, whilst being under considerable pressure from the commissioning parents not to terminate.

What could possibly go wrong?

And bear in mind, that the risks associated with donor egg pregnancy is significantly more risky for the woman.

Having a child isn’t a right. Even if you would be an excellent parent. That’s the crux of this argument- no one is entitled to have a baby just because they want one.

Just because there are terrible parents in the world and good people without children, it still doesn’t make surrogacy a good idea.

As PP have said, adoption solves a problem but we know that it’s not ideal. It’s just the best we have when the biological mother isn’t available or suitable, for whatever reason.

Commercial surrogacy should be banned outright.

I understand when it’s a family member or friend people may feel differently but I’m still opposed to it. It’s still not ideal for the baby as in the early weeks being removed from their biological mother is traumatising. Also what happens if things go wrong? What happens if the baby has a terrible disability? What happens if the birth mother suffers terrible injuries during birth and she can’t work again/it destroys her quality of life? We safeguard people from making medical decisions which are dangerous and I think surrogacy falls within that. And of course, all of this doesn’t even start to consider the fact that a woman may be pressured or coerced into being a surrogate and feel unable to tell anyone.

I understand there are people on this thread advocating for non-commercial surrogacy because of personal experience and I understand why. But objectively there are so many risks- plus the fact it’s not in the best interests of the baby - it’s still a resounding no from me.

None of this centres the child.
You mention adoption. Outcomes for adopted children are, statistically, awful. Love is not enough to overcome trauma. Adopters have to become massively knowledgeable about trauma informed parenting and even then their journey is much more difficult than for children brought up by their biological parents.
Removing the child from their mother is traumatic. To conceive a child with the deliberate intent of putting it through trauma seems horrific. Given it is happening it seems that the sensible thing to do would be to halt it until some of the children given to "commissioning parents" have grown up, and see if these children have outcomes similar to adopted children or similar to children brought up by birth parents. It would be tricky to control for FASD, wealth, education etc but not impossible.
Once someone proves it is in the best interest of the child it should be regulated. Until then it should be banned.

Why should they? They're both men, they don't have wombs. Babies aren't owed to anyone.

Men renting women's bodies is disgusting. At least prostitution is only for the hour.

I don't think women should rent other women's bodies either though, treating women's bodies like a commodity or service is never OK.

I don't care how happy the surrogate is or how much she is paid, just because one woman is OK with being exploited doesn't mean exploitation is OK.

Regardless of the issue, I am not sure why the Catholic Church should have so much impact on political policy anymore, given the lack of attendance by parishioners. Where I live, due to declining interest, anger from the child sexual abuse scandal, and lawsuits from the same scandal, they are shutting down two-thirds of the Catholic churches in my metropolitan area. From a population standpoint, the proportion of Catholics has dropped so much, that it does not seem politicians should pay as much attention to the Church anymore.

@AstridFahan the stats fot Catholicism in the UK are less relevant though. The countries where women are being exploited by legal regimes that allow them to sell babies are often places where there are a lot of catholics especially among the poor who are more likely to be exploited in this way. The pope taking a stand that this whole practice is immoral could certainly have an impact on the number of women who participate. However, declaring it immoral is useless without also condemning the sociopolitical landscape that puts poor women into this desperate position in the first place.

He does condemn the sociopolitical landscape.

@AstridFahan why should the church not be able to speak about this. Speaking of ethics and morality is their bread and butter.
It does seem that you are looking for a way to dismiss those that disagree with you. If you think they are wrong in the substance of what they are saying, then disagree but to take the view “It’s the pope- therefore he will be wrong and I will take the opposite point of view” is refusing to do your own thinking on this.