Looks like Italy have banned surrogacy

[ColinRobinsonsFart]

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

Completely agree!

Then think it through better.

An organ is not a sentient being. A baby is. They are not the same, therefore organ transplant, donation and trafficking have zero relevance to the discussion of surrogacy.

You are reducing a human being to a commodity for trade and arguing over there being good and bad ways to trade it. A baby is not a commodity.

Actually I think organ donation is relevant to this discussion. It always amazes me how people can be supportive of international surrogacy and yet in the same breath condemn international organ donation (particularly kidney donations), instantly recognising the inherent inequality in one but not the other. 'My body my choice' and all that surely applies in both senarios? And from the recipient's perspective surely the right to life trumps the right to a child and so the case for the legalisation of international organ donation should be even stronger than surrogacy. But it seems more prople support international surrogacy that international organ donation. Could it be that when people visualise an organ donor in a poor country they see a desperate man, while a 'surrogate' brings to mind nothing more than a hazy ill-defined bump?

But I agree that a child is more that an organ and indeed much more than a 'fucking fondue set'. Like 'surrogate', the term 'baby' and 'child' seem to have worked to decouple children from their humanity. 'A person born to a surrogate mother'. That's what we are talking about. Can you gift a person?

The other comparison with organ donation is that before you can donate a kidney to a loved one as a living related donor you have to undergo extensive psychological assessment and counselling before you even start the blood matching process.

But with so-called altruistic surrogacy, nothing.

I still haven’t seen on any answer as to whether the people posting about other posters ‘supporting’ far right governments by saying banning all surrogacy is a good thing actually support the commoditisation and exploitation of women and infants in surrogacy or not.

When asked they disappeared. Almost like the intention was to shame posters without engaging with any aspect of the very tough discussion that needs to be had. Almost like they understood that their position of shaming posters by aligning them with fascists for pointing out the harms of surrogacy put them in the position of supporting trafficking of infants and exploiting women for their wombs was fucked up from the very start.

Similarly simply repeating that the law ends up making creation of a family harder for same sex attracted couples is also inadvertently simply just excusing the exploitation of women’s bodies and the commodification/ trafficking across borders of infants. I have noticed that posters don’t come back and state how they fully support women and babies being exploited and commodified. Which is the logical extension of their position.

So do those posters support surrogacy, or not? Or are they just here to shut down discussions because either they don’t want to address the harm to women and children that any surrogacy creates or they don’t want to be exposed for hypocrites.

Because insinuating that posters are ‘far right’ or ‘fascist’ or homophobic while supporting surrogacy is hypocritical. Blatantly so.

Organ donation (or sperm donation which is another amazing false equivalence I've seen) isn't relevant to the conversation, but sale of organs is.

I struggle to see how a poor woman selling a baby for £15k 'expenses' is so different to her selling a kidney for £1500.
Both carry a lifelong risk to heath.
Both could claim 'my body my choice'.
Both make someone happy... and you could argue a kidney to literally save a life is far 'kinder'.

The line that they 'can't keep up with demand' from the surrogacy conference turned me cold.
Those pesky women not offering up enough wombs.
Now convince me it's not trading in humans when the highest bidder (not the most suitable person to be a parent) gets the baby.

Completely agree @Changeforachange

Babies are not a commodity. They are not a gift.

Not in a capitalist society. Everything is commodity. Everything. And if it isn't, you're not doing it right. Your time. Your labour. Your health. All tradeable commodities in one way or another. What you eat, what you watch, who you know - also all tradeable commodities. Otherwise Google wouldn't exist.

When you are that far down the rabbit hole, trying to exempt something does rather seem the paradigm of George Bernard Shaws "We are now merely haggling over the price." mic drop.

People may not like the fact. They may be unhappy. Deeply unhappy. But we are where we are because we are what we are.

Can you tell me which European countries are fully capitalist societies?

I think your post seems to be rather polarised compared to reality. The reality is a long way from how you paint it. Most countries in Europe, as are many other countries around the world, use a hybrid of political models in their governments as I am sure you are aware.

So using ‘but capitalism in a capitalist world’ to support surrogacy is not very relevant at all.

Not everyone has the right to have children. After a very high risk pregnancy I couldn’t have more children, which broke my heart, but I accepted it was not something I could change.

Women should not be sold the myth they can have children whenever they want.

Why do you think rich successful women who have delayed having children until too late are more deserving than any other women who would make good mothers?

@TrainedByCats it's the rich part of themselves.
Aka "I have money, I'm entitled to use this to get what I want".and sod anyone affected by this, me me me, is all that matters".
Grim.

Link3 notbadconsidering thought provoking comparison with organ donation and I think you’re onto something there. Exploitation of mens bodies seems to be regarded as so much worse, I wonder why cough patriarchy

If you consider only the women’s rights argument, then commercial surrogacy is similar to a commercial trade in human organs or prostitution.

If you consider the child’s rights, then surrogacy is similar to the slave trade- a trade in human beings- which has been legally abolished.

People are not legally permitted to buy, sell, trade or give human beings as ‘gifts’.

Very good points @TangledRoots - i honestly think surrogacy is abhorrent and I am completely amazed that it's legal anywhere.

So using ‘but capitalism in a capitalist world’ to support surrogacy is not very relevant at all.

Who the fuck said I supported surrogacy ? Oh, you did. Because I didn't. If you want a statement I personally would ban all surrogacy. And then any surgery which isn't to correct a diagnosed medical issue.

But neither is ever going to happen in our commoditised world.

And wailing that babies have become commodities is too little too late.