California commodifies women and babies for gay men

[collateral]

(100) Telling it Like it is Without the Gaslighting (substack.com)

One of the things I find most disturbing about surrogacy is that you are creating a scenario where a baby will experience trauma. The women who for whatever reason become surrogates will have varied histories and circumstances that bring them to this and the emotions around it may be varied and complex. But the babies will have one very basic and very fundamental trauma forced upon them - the separation at birth or soon after from the woman who has carried them for 9 months.

Indeed, that occurred to me - the statistical likelihood otherwise is miniscule.

I don't see what the big deal is. If a woman wants to be a surrogate and doesn't mind doing this for money, I really don't care. It's not my business.

I don't view this as any different to giving a baby up for adoption - why would the "mother" continue to be involved once the infant is in the custody of the parents? The baby won't know any different, they are barely aware they even exist. As long as their needs are met they will be happy. How is this different from adoption to a married straight couple for the baby? They won't give a crap if their caregivers are two men.

This is all very overwrought and keyed up but that's par for the course on this forum. The echo chamber effect is real.

Is this where Pink News talks about a gestational carrier, and also about same-sex couples vs cisgender mixed couples?

It is. Very revealing indeed. My eyes nearly popped out of my head for the second time today. Will need a break from this mayhem.
Thank you for posting.

@LobeliaSackville
Women becoming pregnant (accidentally) and deciding to give the baby up for adoption is NOT the same as a made-to-order if baby implanted in a woman intentionally.

It is more than a tad different. Also read the article from Pink News where couples are not at all happy when the baby has the wrong sex to what they ordered.

Why they can’t just assign them to order at birth is an Open question. Then they would avoid a lot of faff screening embryos and what have you.

calm down you hysterical women, eh @LobeliaSackville?

I don't see what the big deal is

Maybe read the entire thread or any of the others on this subject, you might get some insight into what the “big deal” is.

Suzanne Moore attributes it to Andrea Dworkin: https://twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1487862008045350913?lang=en

Tell us you haven’t bothered to read the thread without using the words “I haven’t bothered to read the thread”.

All of the arguments you’ve used in your “it’s no big deal” pitch were dealt with in the first two or three pages.

Seems we’ve reached the “you silly women, you’re all the same on this forum” page.

Thanks!

Lobelia clearly hasn’t considered that babies grow into children and then adults.

I do wonder where all these people have come from who think that if a kid seems ‘alright/not bothered’ about the devastating decisions adults make about their lives when they are a kid, then no impact was made at all. And also the idea that the younger a child is, the less of an impact those devastating decisions made upon them.

Its so dehumanising of babies and the person they are to become.

But the OP is specifically about California, which permits commercial surrogacy.

"The baby won't know any different, they are barely aware they even exist. As long as their needs are met"
"babies are barely aware they’re even alive and don’t have the capacity to make decisions."
Anyone else notice an eerie similarity between these posts from Lobelia and L3? Is there a list of bad faith arguments somewhere.
And a quick Google search shows dozens of studies that show newborns recognise their mothers voice so maybe not such a blank slate after all.

Yes!

Anyone else notice an eerie similarity between these posts from Lobelia and L3? Is there a list of bad faith arguments somewhere.

I posted one earlier in the thread. It wasn’t specific to the surrogacy context, but I posted it because I think that some of the people drawn to debate surrogacy online are invested in men having the right to buy babies for the worst reasons imaginable.

And it seems worth pointing out that this “the child doesn’t even know” argument is used for apologetics of other kinds of child abuse.

TheBiologyStupid · Today 18:22

L3ThirtySeven · Today 10:14

Look it up. The law is very strict on the expenses. No one is making money in the U.K. being a surrogate mother.

But the OP is specifically about California, which permits commercial surrogacy.

Not only is this thread OP about California, but anyone from the U.K. is legally able to pay a surrogate mother in order to get a baby there - or anywhere else abroad that allows surrogacy.

And it seems worth pointing out that this “the child doesn’t even know” argument is used for apologetics of other kinds of child abuse.

This is the thing, isn’t it?

There are probably a significant minority who believe the age of consent laws are silly, old-fashioned and religious. It is easy for us to assume that everyone agrees that they are a good and vital thing for protecting children, but really, how much do we really know what others think and feel?

And also the idea that the younger a child is, the less of an impact those devastating decisions made upon them.

Its so dehumanising of babies and the person they are to become.

It is awful. Re the idea about the younger the children is the less of an impact what is done to them will have:
people who haven’t yet shoukd read books by Alice Miller and Sue Gerhardt.

After reading through this thread I began thinking about the role of the surrogate in all this. And the way we are now told that giving others access to the insides of women's bodies is a good career move for women, perhaps even a feminist one.

On the former, I have read that surrogate pregnancies have higher medical risks when the egg used does not come form the surrogate.

If this is true, the risks the surrogate is taking are going to be higher than the risks women getting pregnant in general are taking. Is this additional risk compensated for in the payments? Are the surrogates even aware of this extra risk?

How are the rights of the women who undertake surrogacy protected in the contracts? What are the cumulative risks for a poor woman who has several surrogacy pregnancies in a row? Is it the surrogates who make the most money in these contracts or the intermediating firms arranging for the service?

On the latter, I find it ironic that this new type of progressive thinking strongly supports the capitalist industries built on exploiting the female reproductive system (prostitution, pornography and surrogacy) at the same time as it also supports erasing the fact of femaleness in how we are allowed to speak about those systems.

This is not progressive at all.

Nepeta, indeed, let's look at this from the surrogates point of view and legalize it.

All amounts are examples except the 9 pound 50 which is the average hourly salary for 23 and over in the Uk. It might be more by now btw, but as an example.

Carrying a pregnancy to term: full fee for 9 months 24x7 at 9,50 per hour, so 62.000 pounds. Post partum recovery six months at half fee:
20.000. Risk of death or severe injury: shall we say 20.000? Just for the risk.
All medical expenses for the buying couple.
All cost for maternity leave for the mother is for the buying couple.

All after effects per pregnancy or delivery consequences listed and valued, so for example ceasarean additional 250 per day. Urinal issues 5.000 or depending on how bad and how long it lasts,perineal tears 1000, excessive bleeding 2000, etc. If the mother dies, 100.000 in case she leaves any children behind she was raising. In case of lasting complications such as hysterectomy, depending on severity ranging from 10.000 to 100.000 to cover loss of future income.
Issues pre delivery: pre eclampsia: 50.000 as it is risk of death. High blood pressure 10.000 etc etc.

Any issues with the baby post delivery: for the buying couple to decide and fund.
Any issue with the fetus pre delivery: for the mother to decide, the buying couple to fund. After all the fetus is in the mother so any decision is up to her. The buying couple are buying the baby so it is for them to pay. Even if the mother decides to terminate, her decision and she does not need to refund anything. After all pregnancy does not come with any guarantee.

Nobody can object to this. Everyone pro surrogacy is expecting the mother to take the risk of pregnancy so she needs to be compensated for it. It is not fair to let the mother take all financial risk as well health risk, the buying couple wants the end product, they need to pay. They are commissioning the mother to grow a baby.

As the fetus is in the mother and all health risk is for the mother, she gets to make all decisions about her body and yes, until birth that includes the fetus.

This is what a commercial surrogacy contract should look like. If someone is injured on the job, the employer needs to pay. In this case the employer is the buying couple, but as even employers don't own their employees, they have zero say in how their employee run their own lives, as long as they do the job. But as pregnancies do not come with guarantees, there are no guarantees to the outcome in a commercial surrogacy contract.

Funnily enough, I don't think even pro surrogacy people would want a contract like this. Because they want the mother to take all the risk, with no compensation for the risk, no 24x7 fee, no additional compensation in case of injury or death and full say in what happens inside somebody elses body.

sanluca · Today 19:36
Interesting and true. What was your total?

100,000 for death is too little though. I wonder if any surrogate mothers can get insured for death?

The problem about the line of argument set out in your post Sanluca is that it is saying: there is no point of principle here, it is just a question of price. Which opens the door for haggling about a lower price. Or alternatively for proposals for legislation which requires the costs to be covered from medical insurance, thus putting up everyone else’s insurance premiums to be increased so that the “want to have a child gestated by a woman outside our couple and then handed to us” folx can get their wants fulfilled without spending too much of their own money.

And it ignores the simple fact that the baby is not a commodity to be bought via a woman’s gestational services, however expensive they may be.

Adoption is finding a solution to an existing situation.
Surrogacy is creating the situation in the first place intentionally.

The difference is simply explained.