California commodifies women and babies for gay men

[collateral]

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

Have you never heard of ivf?

Some small risk to the merchandise, but within acceptable tolerances for them. 😩

You know they have to transplant the embryo into a woman, don’t you?

But IVF is not a neutral thing. And the technology has had some problematic effects on how we view human infants and their conception in several ways.

Bottomline is that no one should be able to buy or sell human beings.
Babies are human beings.

And yes, in the US, Ukraine etc. babies are being created for commercial gain, not for charity.

And no, sperm/egg donation is not equivalent in any way to gestating a living human being inside your body and then removing it upon birth to hand it over to the people who commissioned it.

It's barbaric, if you think about it. The last time it was okay to sell your family members was centuries ago, and while it was okay at the time, views on slavery have clearly changed.

(directed mainly at @L3ThirtySeven)

There’s a yawning chasm in between your statements and no obvious way to bridge it.

But you’ve presented it as an immediate logical consequence.

Lots of your arguments look like that.

I don’t get why everyone feels so entitled to get a newborn baby these days.

When I got pregnant the first time I felt almost undeserving. It was such a miraculous thing to happen to me. I still feel humbled to think of it.

These people seeing mothers and their babies thinking “That’s NOT FAIR that they’ve got one and I don’t get to have one. Waa waa waa. Well come hell or high water I’m getting one!”.

These are people - HUMAN BEINGS that they’re farming like dogs. SMH.

This is true.

Yet the way they talk about the horrors of slavery, or at least the Atlantic slave trade, makes it seem like commodifying people is the most horrible thing possible in their moral system.

But at least talking about prostitution, I think there are reasonable questions about to what degree it is ok to restrict adults in what they do, or whether there might be a harm reduction factor to consider.

None of that applies in surrogacy, none of it has to do with the will of the child, nor trying to prevent worse scenarios. It's really just selling or giving away babies to make adults happy, with biological parents agreeing to sever all responsibility and a family relationship.

But they ARE adopting. When they “commission” a human infant from a women they are not in a relationship with, the birth mother has to give up the infant, and then - depending on whether one of or both of the “commissioning parents” has/ have no biological link to the infant - either one or both of them will need to go through the legal adoption process. Using a surrogate is a way of fast tracking past all those inconvenient assessments and hurdles involved in adopting a child which isn’t the result of surrogacy.

But at least talking about prostitution, I think there are reasonable questions about to what degree it is ok to restrict adults in what they do, or whether there might be a harm reduction factor to consider.

I think both prostitution and surrogacy are perfectly defensible practices - if you are defending an idealised theoretical version of how you think they ought to work, and entirely ignoring how they work in the real world.

(The idealised theoretical version doesn't work in either case because the pontificating ones are blind to the oppression of women.)

A bit on the side of the discussion but prostitution is extremely harmful for the prostitute and that should be more widely known too:
Frequent UTI’s.
Frequent (daily) severe pain in the vagina and lower back.
Bruises, needing paracetamol in large amounts.
Infertility.
Cuts and damages to the vagina and/or anus.

That is aside the huge risk of rape both vaginal and anal and those associated damages, and other abuse.

I keep thinking none of these «jobs» are like any other kind of working. Both of these «jobs» require another person inside of you for various amounts of time.
No. It is too invasive and exploitative no matter how you look at it.

People have free will and can make their own, mutually agreed upon arrangements. But not as a business condoned by society - actually worse: cheered on.
No Thank you.

I haven't read the full thread but it was mentioned a few times on the first page or two.

But you are wrong to say that couples who would be willing to do surrogacy wouldn't be approved for adoption - pursuing surrogacy, in itself, wouldn't be a barrier to being approved to adopt. Of course they may not be approved for any number of other reasons, which is why the 'they should just adopt' line is ridiculous.

But pursuing surrogacy, itself, is not going to lead to someone not being approved as an adopter. Social workers would want to know that surrogacy plans have been fully abandoned before considering adoption (they don't want applicants who are hedging their bets) and that the couple of have no lingering grieving to do for a biological child.

But if a couple, for example, initially wanted to have a child by surrogate, but decided (for whatever reason) that it wasn't the right course of them (e.g. cost) and then, a year later, applied to adopt their pursuing of surrogacy would almost certainly not affect them negatively. In the same way, if a couple had a child with a surrogate five years ago, and now want to apply to adopt a sibling for their first child, the fact that the first child was conceived through surrogacy would not affect their application significantly.

That's not the case.

Provided one of the couple is the biological parent of the child conceived through surrogacy (e.g. egg donor or sperm donor) then the other non-biological parent does not need to adopt the child. Instead they get a parental order.

More generally though I think I was fairly clear in talking about adoption as commonly understood - i.e. adopting a child with no biological link to either parent. The 'they can just adopt' nonsense is insulting and ignorant of what adoption actually looks like.

A newborn baby can recognise its mother by the sound of her voice. It prefers the taste of her breast milk and prefers her smell. A newborn baby can differentiate the language its mother speaks from other languages. Separating a newborn from its mother causes distress to both.
In the case of adoption, the distress is outweighed by the potential harm that will be done to the baby if allowed to stay with the mother. It is the least-worst option, and has long term consequences for the well being of the child.
To suggest that a baby can be taken from its mother and given to a different set of parents, and that the baby won’t know anything about it is incorrect. People who deny this don’t know enough about basic child development to take part in the discussion.

Lovely post reminding us (not that many women / mothers need reminding) of the fundamental need that a baby has for its mother.

Sorry I wasn't clear in the point I was trying to make - I didn't mean having pursued surrogacy would prevent them from applying to adopt, I meant that the kind of person who thinks it's okay to buy the use of a woman's body and purchase a baby would be unlikely to have the personal and moral qualities required for modern adoption.

Back in the day, adoption was about providing young babies for nice couples who couldn't have them biologically. Over time, it was recognised that this causes harm and the purpose shifted - not providing babies for parents who wanted them, but providing parents for children who needed them. It became about the best interests of the child, not the adult. Surrogacy is all about the wishes of the adults, and not at all about the child.

Yet there’s no actual substance to your reply. You haven’t said why any of this is so.

Personally I don’t think the small amount of risk around bonding and development (according to non partisan studies) associated with surrogacy, means it is the unequivocal “bad” thing posters are suggesting it is.

Given we accept a small amount of risk in other procreation scenarios - for instance when there is a danger of genetically transmitted conditions - I really can’t see why surrogacy is being singled out. If one accepts one scenario, one should logically accept both. That is, of course, unless there is a motive present for attacking surrogacy that isn’t connected with the child’s welfare, that isn’t being stated in this discussion.

Great point nothingcomestonothing
The comparison with adoption is worth developing as you highlight. Society now expects considerable insight and commitment from prospective adopters before accepting that they might be suitable to adopt a child. Buying a baby via surrogacy simply demands a full wallet.
We know how unrelated partners can pose an enhanced threat to babies and children - all the terrible evidence / data is freely available. Is there an enhanced risk where the new "parents" are not biologically related to a baby and / or have not been intimately involved in the mother's pregnancy - just watching from afar? I don't know - just wondering.

Yet there’s no actual substance to your reply. You haven’t said why any of this is so.

The substance of my reply is - totally directly - that I think you are intentionally evasive and aim to distort rather than to have a discussion.

Given that your post was deleted, I’m going to suggest that MN didn’t like it any more than I did.

Well I was going to stay out of it until you said non partisan. Do you really think anyone allowed to work in these fields, or indeed to remain in the scientific industry at all, is truly non partisan?

L3ThirtySeven Today 08:56

And commercial surrogacy is banned. All the companies facilitating it are not for profit.

People in the U.K. are not banned from hiring surrogate mothers abroad and many do. They pay for this.

One reason, apart from the lack of surrogate mothers, is that in the U.K. a surrogate mother has the right to keep the baby.

I’ve put up a perfectly reasonable point that directly addresses an issue raised by other commenters, namely the notion that surrogacy is risky and therefore should be discouraged.

if you wish to answer it with an unfounded ad hominem accusation, that’s your choice, but the assumption I’ll be taking away is that your can’t think of a decent response.

That's all fair enough and I agree, however, there is a clear question around restricting the autonomy of women to make contracts and have sex, against the risk of exploitation, and the greater harm to society, plus questions about what is the best way to deal with an illegal sex trade. Those are all real things that require discussion because there are trade-offs, and also because in different times and places it may not be possible to take the same approach.

With surrogacy, there is no real argument about how it is good for the child to be birthed as a commodity that will be removed from its mother, and it often directly severs the normal ties of family that a child has a right to unless it is impossible or dangerous. The only advantage is to the purchasers and to some extent the woman who is paid, though she may well be exploited as well.

“Given we accept a small amount of risk in other procreation scenarios - for instance when there is a danger of genetically transmitted conditions - I really can’t see why surrogacy is being singled out. If one accepts one scenario, one should logically accept both. That is, of course, unless there is a motive present for attacking surrogacy that isn’t connected with the child’s welfare, that isn’t being stated in this discussion.”

Such as:

• the reproductive exploitation of women;
• the moral and ethical point about the buying and selling of human infants.

Both of which have been “stated in this discussion”.

By the way, try as you might to dehumanise the reality of pregnancy and childbirth, by using language like “other procreation scenarios” to distract from what is actually involved, it doesn’t change the reality that bringing a new human being into the world always requires another human being, and always from one biological sex and not the other, to carry the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

I don't know either, and I'm so jaded about the state of research currently that I'm sure a study seeking the answer won't be coming any time soon

On a tangent but not totally, I've often wondered about rates of family conflict as surrogate children get older. Small cute babies grow and become able to express their own personality, wants, opinions - is that more challenging in surrogate families? Is there an element that the children should be happy/grateful, that the provision of material things should make them happy, even an idea that a purchased child should be as you want or expect them to be?

I'm not explaining it well, I suppose I was thinking about whether being able to get what you want with money, and without being 'inconvenienced' in any of the ways that biological mothers and modern adopters can be as part of that process, doesn't equip purchasing parents well to understand or cope with the fact that your child is their own person, not an extension of you, and has their own wants, preferences, priorities which they think are more important than yours. If you buy it, do you expect to get your idea of a 'good' child?