surrogacy, Julie Bindel is right, it is human rights abuse

[antimatter]

www.byline.com/project/43/article/820
and
www.byline.com/project/43

I have to say I didn't realise that surrogate clinics existed to provide service to rich foreigners.
It is exploitation on many levels.

"Why is it OK to use the outsides of others' bodies (the hands of a masseuse, for example) but not the insides? "

Which is basically asking why rape is worse than, say, hitting someone. Both may cause physical injury, or no physical injury, yet the loss of bodily integrity, and the knowledge of the rapist as to what it means to them and to the victim, all is based on the difference between the outside of our own body, and the inside. I think it's not just an issue of consent, but of violating someone bodily integrity. Which then also makes using (or paying for) the inside of someone's body a different issue to using the outside.

After all, some of the exterior of our bodies (and which bits depends on culture, religious traditions etc) is more public than others, in terms of what can be seen or commonly touched. Hands are more public, for example, than faces, or lips. So, a massage, for the masseur, is about as public as you can get (hands only), and more private for the one being massaged.

Think of the inside of your mouth -- most people would only ever let a doctor, a dentist, or their lover, access that part of them.

"The right to sell blood, organs, eggs, sperm, bone marrow, babies and sex are not in that list. " Yep, agree with you on that.

"I guess the health statistician would also factor in the small but serious risk of the donor developing kidney failure or being injured in the remaining kidney."

I think that was included in the paper I found:

Long-Term Consequences of Kidney Donation, New England Journal of Medicine, 2009 Jan 29; 360(5): 459–469.

Okay, probably a US study, but seemed to be in response to some claims that some kidney donors had then turned up on kidney transplant lists.

Actually, I found it quite reassuring that there seemed to be no additional long-term risks seemed to be negligible, given careful screening.

Matilda - "I think certain things shouldn't be for sale. who here on this thread thinks slavery is OK?"

Slavery is not OK because the slave receives no renumeration for his labour and does it because he will otherwise be beaten/killed.

People who are paid for their menial labour exist everywhere today. Cleaning ladies, farmers, etc do what slaves used to do. The only difference is that they are paid for their labour.

"Bodily things and labour can make people ill, and keep them under the control of others legally and through poverty."

Like mining, for example? It is very physical labour that puts the worker in danger on a daily basis and in the long term. It is paid labour and it is legal.

"So my perspective on this, as with prostitution, isn't from the point of view of what restrictions we should place on what people do with their own bodies"

But that is the consequences, regardless of the POV you feel you come from. You want to restrict people from doing something with their body that they want to do, which does not necessarily harm them.

"it's from the point of view of what sort of society do we live in where powerful people feel it is defensible to use the insides of very bodies of others"

Why is it OK to use the outsides of others' bodies (the hands of a masseuse, for example) but not the insides?

"I'd place altruistic surrogacy for a sister or close friend in the same category as mutually consensual enjoyable sex... Paid surrogacy goes with prostitution, paid organ donation"

Unfortunately for that argument, many women do choose to be prostitutes (often temporarily) out of their own free will and it is mutually consensual. I have heard some say that it is even enjoyable and thrilling.

There are many surrogates who say they enjoy being pregnant and being able to help couples desperate for a baby. It is of course consensual, as well.

From where I am sitting, this is looking like you wanting to impose your morality and your understanding of these issues (sex for money cannot possibly be mutually consensual and enjoyable?) on others.

"I think it's not just an issue of consent, but of violating someone bodily integrity. "

Can it be violating when the surrogate, masseuse, prostitute etc are consenting?

"After all, some of the exterior of our bodies (and which bits depends on culture, religious traditions etc) is more public than others, in terms of what can be seen or commonly touched. Hands are more public, for example, than faces, or lips. So, a massage, for the masseur, is about as public as you can get (hands only)"

I don't think this is relevant. Hands are public so you are OK with prostituted being paid for hand jobs?

The important factor is consent, not which body part you think is more public than the others.

As for purchasing: Does hiring someone for services she provides with her body constitute "purchasing" that body? I think not. People provide services with their bodies in many different walks of life - modelling for artists, menial jobs such as giving massages, building, professional dancing, even professional sports people. When we watch Wimbledon finals, are we purchasing Nadal's body?

I find this very strange. I really can't consider paid surrogacy or prostitution as just another job.

Most of what I have seen on this thread was not Deontological (an act is right or wrong in itself)

I think blood donation is seen as an act which is right in itself. The New Zealand study showed donors were put off by being paid. My husband is a long term regular donor- he said he would not donate if it were paid.

Maybe he is just being selfish -it's something he can feel good about with little inconvenience to him. Virtue is its own reward -pay him that feeling of being virtuous goes and he certainly doesn't need the money.

Agree, Lass. If you price blood donation, the person selling their blood thinks "hmm, I could get way more for half an hour of my time than £x" and stops doing it. It becomes a transaction.

This story, I think, really illustrates how surrogate mothers can be seen as useless flesh bags once their babies have been removed from them:

time.com/3838319/israel-nepal-surrogates/

Nobody who cares about the dignity of women could possibly think this whole practice is anything other than an utter abomination.

"The important factor is consent, not which body part you think is more public than the others......Hands are public so you are OK with prostituted being paid for hand jobs?"

Penises aren't public though, nor is masturbation, so your example fails. I would not have any moral objection to people being paid to hold hands though...........

"Can it be violating when the surrogate, masseuse, prostitute etc are consenting? "

Yes, else I would not have said it wasn't just an issue of consent! And I think you are purposefully trying to confuse two slightly different meanings of violated/violating (i.e. violate as in breach, versus violate as in the specific meaning of sexual assault). Plus I also was referring to 'bodily integrity' as the thing being violated.

You after all, were the poster supposedly requesting a reason why interiors of bodies are different (or treated differently) to exteriors. But then you just seem to ignore reasons why that is so..................

"wanting to impose your morality and your understanding of these issues" Arguing or stating views different from your own is not the same as imposing them on you! Why do you find it such an imposition to discover that other people don't always agree with you?

From where I'm standing Cote, I really can't see that you've got any better/other argument than -- it's consenting, so get lost! How dare you impose on me (by daring to disagree!)............Very, very unconvincing.

I'd forgotten about the Israeli surrogacies. That is awful.

I am a bit unsure on what to think of surrogacy.

On one hand, I feel that pregnancy is just another of those unpaid female labors - there is no compensation for the risks, and the risks are great. Women do not even get first rights to the child they gave birth to, there have been cases where a man who left the mother when he heard about her pregnancy was given full custody of the child afterwards, even though the child was well cared for beforehand.
Surrogate mothers are at least paid something, even though it is much too little for the risks taken.

On the other hand ... some things just shouldn't be for sale, because when they are, they are viewed as just another commodity.
If someone says he is poor and needs charity, but he owns a big house, you'd tell him to sell the house first.
I don't want to live in a society where women's bodies are seen as a thing they should sell to avoid poverty.

I haven't seen any evidence that society thinks women 'should' enter prostitution. Or surrogacy, come to that. Despite the money that can be made, there's usually a stigma attached to it. There doesn't seem to be a risk of anyone withholding help until they've tried all options; quite the reverse. Money via these routes is viewed as ill-gotten gains. There are plenty of things to be cautious about but I cannot see a basis for that particular fear.

Another issue that I don't think has been brought up about the use of foreign surrogates is the size issue.
That hideous article about the Nepalese surrogates reminded me of my Nepalese neighbours who are teeny tiny. Nepalese and many Asian women are often a lot smaller then Europeans.. Especially if they are from poorer backgrounds.
Yet they are being impregnated with European embryos. What makes the situation worse is that the egg donor is chosen usually for desired characteristics like height.
So these tiny women are having to carry and birth bigger babies then they would naturally carry. A bit like a chihuahua being inseminated with a rottweiler embryo.
We wouldn't treat animals this badly
This is why it is a human rights abuse.

there have been cases where a man who left the mother when he heard about her pregnancy was given full custody of the child afterwards, even though the child was well cared for beforehand.

In Saudi Arabia, possibly ? Not the UK on those facts

stairway Although marriages take place naturally between people of all different shapes and sizes, I also have reservations about the size issue, especially as two embryos are routinely implanted in some countries. If there is going to be surrogacy at all, I think there needs to be some kind of sliding scale where surrogates of certain dimensions cannot be asked to carry babies with genetic parents who are large than the average size for the surrogate's country, unless she has a large frame herself. I don't know how this would be worked out and implemented, though.

I also feel that implanting more than one embryo in that kind of situation is not on at all.

Hmmm wonder if there's a guardian columnist in our midst?!?

The guardian article today seems a bit coincidental!

and 570 comments!

they commented on the same source last week:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/20/commercial-surrogacy-wombs-rent-same-sex-pregnancy

There doesn't seem to be a risk of anyone withholding help until they've tried all options; quite the reverse. Money via these routes is viewed as ill-gotten gains. There are plenty of things to be cautious about but I cannot see a basis for that particular fear.

Not at the moment maybe, but this is changing. Prostitution is legal in Germany, and there has already been a case where they tried to withdraw help from a woman who refused to work in a brothel - I think the job was advertised as barmaid or something, but really, it was very obviously a job in an environment no woman should be forced to enter, and they tried to force her to, she had to go to court.

In the end it was decided she cannot be expected to work there, but the fact that this cannot be taken for granted anymore makes me sceptical as to the legalisation of selling bodies.

@cadnowyllt: Not the UK, Germany.

Germany increasingly looks like one of those misogynist hellholes in the Middle East, doesn't it? Very depressing.

That is utterly awful.

Glosswitch

Good article.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2016/02/paid-surrogacy-makes-disadvantaged-women-walking-wombs-unacceptable

oh sorry - posted that same link as PalmerViolet

It is a good article. I don't usually like Glosswitch's writing. One quibble - using a surrogate is not the preserve of rich men.

Thus one woman employing another to clean her house is seen as more abusive than a man employing a woman to gestate, bear and relinquish a child