35

34 comments

‘How is this any different than people being paid to be firefighters, construction workers, or be in the military?’

Seriously? A woman who claims to have been a surrogate can’t tell the difference between having your womb rented out and a bloke laying bricks or putting up plasterboard for 8 hours a day with 1001 applicable employment laws and health and safety rules?

[–] BlackCirce 🔮🐖🐖🐖 32 points

It’s interesting how consistently women and children’s bodies are compared to men’s labor power and the products and services they produce.

Let me know when they can gestate a brick wall and then extrude it from one of their orifices on the job site. Then I'll be impressed.

They literally think of us as resources, and think that ourselves is all we have to offer. Never mind we can do most man-style labor better than they can as well. Logic never worked well with those types.

This argument also dehumanizes the babies and makes them out to be nothing more than the products of the surrogates' labor (as if they're no more significant or important than a designer shoe she sewed in a factory or something). It completely ignores the fact that the surrogacy process is dangerous and traumatic for them as well (even if they cannot clearly remember or articulate it later the way the surrogates can)

I've read so many stories of women who thought they wanted to be surrogates up to the moment of birth. And by then, it's too late. They want to keep the baby or at least be more involved in its life, and there's nothing they can do. And then the opposite happens, where the adoptees no longer want the kid because it's somehow defective, and the surrogate mother ends up stuck with it. Once you treat children and women's bodies as commodities, things go downhill really quickly.

This is something the surrogacy advocates always ignore. Surrogacy is just as cruel to the babies as it is towards the birth mothers. A disturbing number of these babies have been left to rot because they were born with a disability or a defect that the baby buyers didn't want. Some of them are lucky enough to be taken in by their birth mother. But many of them are just dumped in orphanages. And it's especially shitty for the children of overseas surrogacy because most foreign countries don't have birthright citizenship (so those kids are in a limbo because their American parents didn't claim them, but they're not considered full citizens of their birth country either because their genetic parents are foreigners)

Also, none of those jobs involve the men GIVING UP THEIR CHILDREN at the end of it.

Lol. You can always quit being a firefighter. You can wake up one day and decide that being a construction worker sucks and your boss is rude and you leave. Surrogates sign up for a 9 months + unknown recovery time contract WHICH THEY CAN'T QUIT UNDER ANY REASON. You can't wake up one day and decide "nah, I don't like these new feelings in my body and my boss is awful I now quit." They can't. That's just one difference, of course.

Also, jobs such as firefighting and construction are crucial and we literally can't have a functioning society without them. Mankind has somehow made it without surrogacy for millennia and civilizations have flourished.

[–] elleelle 34 points Edited

Serious question: why would anyone, anywhere, ever be an altruistic surrogate for a stranger?

My thoughts on altruistic surrogacy between loved ones are more complex than my wholesale rejection of commercial surrogacy. But I can't imagine anyone being willing to do this for the headpats.

ETA: I should clarify that I am a nurse, and skeptical to the point of outright hostility to the idea that we ought to/can effectively ban medical procedures. The people who write laws in the US are almost all attorneys and their cluelessness about health care is typically very evident in the dogshit laws they craft about it. In short, I don't believe in allowing lawyers to practice medicine without a license. However, many MANY medical procedures are legally regulated (ie, over 18, can't accept money for organ donation, extra steps wrt controlled substances, etc) and those legally enforceable regulations are typically effective. I'd like to see something similar with surrogacy - legally prohibit the financial incentive and watch the practice wither.

I don't get it either. Pregnancy is such an arduous process even in the best of circumstances. I couldn’t imagine doing it just to get head pats from a rich stranger

In the tweet's replies, people said that rejecting surrogacy is homophobic because it prevents gay men from having children. In that case, I imagine they believe that gay couples all have female family members who can help or that women would volunteer to do this for gay men to be allies to the gay community. I don't live in a country with only altruistic surrogacy, but I would be interested to know if this pans out.

I hate this argument. Straight men need a woman to have a baby as much as gay men. Do people really believe that any straight man should be able to just make a woman have his child? Just because you're married doesn't mean your wife owes you a baby.

The surrogacy industry has latched on to the gay issue so they can use it as a shield against criticism. They don't really give a fuck about gay men. Just gay men with money

rejecting surrogacy is homophobic because it prevents gay men from having children

It’s biology that prevents gay men from having children. It’s homophobia that prevents gay men from adopting them.

It’s not homophobia for women to deny gay men access to their reproductive labor, because women are not obligated to provide men in general with children for any reason. Please, gay men, think for a minute about how utterly disturbing that degree of entitlement to another human being’s body is.

IMHO the only ethical way for two men to have bio children would be is if they make some sort of non-coercive arrangement with a woman who also wants a child herself and they share custody. I’ve heard of gay and lesbian couples teaming up to arrange families like this in the past, especially when adoption was out of reach. Sure, that approach requires a whole lot of friendship compatibility and everybody being on the same page about it, but having kids isn’t something to be entered into lightly anyway.

If you just want to go shopping for something cute to add to your family, get a puppy instead.

It’s not like men have a great track record caring for children anyway. The only thing I can think of worse than one dad is two.

Homophobic my ass. Womens rights are never considered above anyone's are they? If gay men want a baby, they should find a woman willing to have one with them. I know a gay man who did this with lesbian friends and its worked out well. What they're saying here is that it's homophobic not to want to allow gay men to purchase a motherless baby and that's just bs.

Gay couples and lesbian couples used to raise (bio) kids together in the old days, so I reject that argument, lol.

What do you think would happen if every woman on the planet refused to donate eggs or be a surrogate tomorrow? What do you think their argument would be then? Cry and pout in the corner that women are mean? I hate that women do these things voluntarily paid or not.

What do you think would happen if every woman on the planet refused to donate eggs or be a surrogate tomorrow? What do you think their argument would be then? Cry and pout in the corner that women are mean?

Yes. They would absolutely make the argument that we're all homophobic b!tches for not giving them designer babies on demand.

Load more (2 comments)

The only reason I can think ok, because it passed my mind for two minutes in my early twenties, is for women who long to be mothers or have a child wish that can't be fulfilled because of finances, or maybe they're single, their Partner doesn't want kids ATM etc. Which is even sadder. These women would have more kids of their own if they could afford them , but instead they've been brainwashed into giving away their kids to a more wealthy couple.

I would have done it altruistically after giving birth, but (and it’s a huge but) I eat for shit (very little veggies, etc) and I gave birth “early” (though not through labor) which counts against you - so I didn’t even bother because who would want me? I’d volunteer for a loved one or something though. Being pregnant was difficult only because I had higher order multiples.

This is stupid. These laws are worthless because baby buyers will always find loopholes to exploit just like they do in the UK and Canada. And even altruistic surrogacy between families is rife with exploitation and abuse because power imbalances happen in families, too. It's best to just make the whole practice illegal

I could personally never take that risk even if it was for my sister or cousin and I knew I'd be able to have a relationship with the baby. I cannot imagine enduring a pregnancy and then handing the baby to strangers that could be terrible people for all I know. It would haunt me forever

I'm a living organ donor, and this conversation sounds similar to organ donation conversations.

With organs, if you outlaw selling organs then, with no financial recourse, you get far fewer organs. With organs, if you allow the selling of organs, then you get really crappy organs and really sketchy ways.

I think this will go differently than organs, though. Obviously because of women being victims is not seen as a problem, but also something with the fact that it's a pregnancy (so closer to "living donors", and also something that can be repeated, and also something that isn't seen as harmful). It's going to seriously lower the bar so that people don't see the criminality in it.

Oh, and please consider donating bone marrow <3

Isn’t the point of this to disincentivize women from becoming surrogates?

I'm not the most up-to-date on Cuban politics, but I thought it was more to keep in line with communist beliefs, where ultimately nothing is bought or sold.

That's a distortion of communist tenets, but either way, women's bodies shouldn't be bought and sold. I'm not sure it's ideological or if it's a response to some pressing issue. In Ukraine, for example, many poor women carrying rich Europeans' babies were stranded early in the war. It really highlighted how all of the risks are offloaded onto the surrogate mothers.