Looks like Italy have banned surrogacy

[ColinRobinsonsFart]

twitter.com/surrogconcern/status/1684294419300732931?s=46&t=_Rfk59cXnQlTYarlcFuu0w

Thank goodness. Buying and selling babies is wrong. Exploiting the health and well being of poorer women abroad is wrong.

Insisting that we state facts on birth certificates rather than adults' desires and phantasies - quite convincing.

No. Your approach here is very blinkered and actually ludicrous. Shall we try it back.

YOU fully support the exploitation of women’s bodies and infants as well as what is in essence trafficking. And all because you cannot support any law change to prevent this being brought in by a government you disagree with. And, a democratically elected European government at that!

I doubt believe anyone has expressed support for this government, yet you have continued this absurd attack.

It’s like calling someone a Nazi because they prefer the trains to run on time

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Tedious, isn't it.

@AgathaSpencerGregson Funny how no one ever makes this point to those who want to rejoin the EU (one of the earliest and most vociferous supporters of a united Europe was of course Oswald Mosley)

Interesting fact about Oswald Mosley from an Irish perspective. When the British gov't let the Black and Tans loose on Irish civilians (murdering, beating and burning), Oswald Mosley crossed the floor. He was outraged at the campaign of terror unleashed on Irish civilians (while still a part of the UK).

Is it only Fascists who are against Irish civilians (or anyone else) being murdered, beaten up and burned? Or is it remotely possible that someone can be against that without being called a Fascist. Some on this thread seem to think it is guilt by association. Good that baby farming (compounding the wrongs by exploiting poor women overseas) is outlawed.

It's bizarre to live in a time when the left wing supports the exploitation of women, especially impoverished women, and the sale of babies, because it fulfils the wishes of the wealthy.

No, they have said that only one person , the biological mother, can be registered as …..the biological mother. Because no one has two biological mothers, not even amongst the alphabet people. One small gamete, one large gamete = baby.

Excellent point

I was thinking the same thing. The argument seems to be that it is bad to ban surrogacy (human baby farming and exploitation of women bodies and economic disadvantage) because it is disproportionately to the benefit of some people. It is similar to argue that slavery should not be banned because it disproportionately to the benefit of some people (and their rights trump).

It would seem one is a Fascist, if they think the real focus should be on the exploitation of the women, babies or enslaved people. I don't really care who is the benefactor at such human cost of others.

There are many outcomes that are being collected, and often they appear on this board. You just have to search for them. Recently women who did this for their siblings have started speaking out about their experiences too. And the coercion they realise was at play AND the damage to their bodies and their family lives as a result of ‘altruistic’ arrangements. Because siblings can lose their lives as they know it in delivering a family member a child. It happens, despite people’s wish to believe it is all wonderful.

And it helps to listen to the growing number of donor conception children discuss their feelings of being ‘created’ and feelings as adults as not being able to reconcile the sense of these conceptions. They are also across the internet.

Doesn’t this just mean that parents will travel to a different country to still get babies via surrogate?

This!

Good! It should be 100% illegal everywhere.

If people want to debate fascism and birth control ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Births

They won't be able to - well not if they want to bring them back to Italy. This is what this new law is banning.

The law won't change that though, for heterosexual couples at least. Or how is the state to know that the newborn travelling into the country with their parents (and a valid US/Canadian/... Birth certificate) is born from surrogacy? Again, it's a law targeting homosexual couples that won't actually have any effect on the numbers of heterosexual couples using surrogates.

The state will know @Jomijo because babies are issued with birth certificates which names their mother.

That will be the giveaway that you've bought your baby in Canada.

Do you believe that people in same sex relationships should therefore be able to exploit women by buying infants outside of Italy then?

Good baby trafficking is just wrong. I can live is a world where sometimes rich people can’t get everything they want.

There's more than one kind of surrogacy, a sister carrying for a sibling just is different to commercial surrogacy, I think private non monetary arrangements shouldn't be outlawed

Do you believe that there is no emotional coercion at play at all in these ‘sibling’ arrangements?

There are mounting stories of sibling arrangements going horribly wrong. Even where a sister has become permanently incapacitated carrying a baby for a sibling. Because all surrogate pregnancies involving an embryo that is not from the egg of the woman who is pregnant carry a higher risk to a pregnancy normally.

There is no ‘safe’ surrogacy.

Frankly,I don't care about the sexuality of the couple concerned. I'm not as informed as I should be about adoption, but if there are more barriers to gay couples than to straight, I would happily join any campaign for equality. But surrogacy is exploitative and wrong on many levels, and I would support a ban.

I think we need an urgent re-think about donor gametes, surrogacy, experiments on human embryos, interfering with DNA and the structure of gametes before conception. It has all gone way too far.

People are being created in unnatural ways- their biological ancestors could be all around the globe, they may have been created in countries with lax rules so they never get to know their biological parents, they could have deep psychological wounds from being separated from their mother and they need to live with that for their whole lives, they could have congenital defects from the IVF, just so that some adults get to have an experience similar to being natural parents.

This is without bringing the commercial trade in babies and potential babies (gametes), or the exploitation of poorer women into the equation.

I am heartened that Italy is doing something about it.

Of course doing something about it is going to affect people who can’t or won’t conceive naturally the most, and since the vast majority of people can and do conceive naturally, of those affected, it is mainly going to be those who won’t conceive naturally - because of either their lack of attraction to, or impatience with the opposite sex (although I think opposite sex attracted women who opt for donor conception are extremely rare).

All of that.

While I share concerns for women being used as surrogates, I'm also extremely concerned for the babies involved. While the women have at least on some level consented, there is no way a baby can consent to being taken from its birth mother.

And while adopting families are well aware of the traumas involved there seems to be a determined refusal to consider that the exact same event is likely to have the same effect on surrogate babies.

This is where the idea that "indirect discrimination" is always problematic gets us, frankly. To a place where something like surrogacy is being argued as acceptable not on its own merits, but because those who use it are statistically more likely to be gay men.

But if you accept the idea that if some regulation or boundary affects a special population more than others, it is just unacceptable, that's where you end up.