Surrogacy

[Rosa Partizan]

I had never dealt with that topic, until some days ago, I read this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/us/foreign-couples-heading-to-america-for-surrogate-pregnancies.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=US_CYU_20140706&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=2).

I decided to discuss it in the NP-subforum, although it definitely has a massive political component. In most countries, as in Germany, surrogacy is illegal. What are your thoughts about all of that? Should it be legal? Which aspects do you consider problematic? Or do you maybe even know someone that got a child that way?

[Rosa Partizan]

oh c'mon you dickheads, this is a highly interesting and controversial topic!

There's recently been a case of an Australian couple that didn't want to pick up their baby from the biological mother in Thailand because it was born with down syndrome. She gave birth to twins and they only picked up the healthy one and had tried to make her abort when she learned that one of the children would be suffering from DS.

[Slavic]

oh c'mon you dickheads, this is a highly interesting and controversial topic!


No it is you that is the dickheads!

lol idk I don't really have any issues with surrogacies. In a capitalist society though I do see them though as a bit rediculous in terms of the cost factor especially with the plethora of adoptable little shits that are available.

[The Feral Underclass]

Should [surrogacy] be legal?

I don't really understand why you would present the option of the state having control over someone's reproductive choices as a legitimate possibility?

[Skyhilist]

I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be legal. I mean there's just as high a chance on the average that if a couple with one or more women with fecundity (the vast majority of couples) didn't use a surrogate mother, they'd have just as high a chance of having a kid with DS and being ableist about it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

In the US, children who have been in the foster system can have some really extreme behavior and emotional problems that are unfortunately far beyond the capacity of potential parents, especially if the adopted child would be their first child altogether. With that in mind I understand why people choose surrogacy instead. A friend of mine adopted a boy who was 6 or 7, who had not necessarily been abused in a physical sense, but seemed to be suffering from some very serious emotional abuse and neglect. My friend loved him and tried to make it work for 2 years but the child was just so broken. He would go from being completely relaxed and playful to lashing out and physically attacking people and animals in seconds, it was very sad to watch and to know that someone had essentially ruined an innocent child through god knows what process before we got to meet him.

Surrogacy under capitalism is problematic as it turns a female body into a commodity, but it is at least voluntary and for that reason it seems that it should be above state interference, although I do think regulations to protect the surrogate are necessary.

[Slavic]

Surrogacy under capitalism is problematic as it turns a female body into a commodity, but it is at least voluntary and for that reason it seems that it should be above state interference, although I do think regulations to protect the surrogate are necessary.

I've never heard of a case where a surrogate was imposed upon, but I have heard of cases where the surrogate decides to keep the baby. This becomes a huge issue when money has already been payout, I also believe the courts tend to overwhelmingly give support to the biological mother.

[PhoenixAsh]

I had to think about this issue.

First I, like TAT, don't think the state should have anything to do with it. There should not be legal barriers to prevent surrogacy at all. I do however think there should be some social barriers.

As Slavic already indicated the first and foremost of it should be, as always, that the mother is the one who eventually decides what will happen...if she wants to keep the baby or if she wants to have it raised by others and in doing so giving away any parental claims of involvement or say in how the child is raised by its parents. Regardless of money involved...the choice of the mother is final...but when money is involved this imo requires restitution.

I of course do reject surrogacy as a profitable enterprise for obvious reasons. Although I recognize that within the context of capitalism it becomes, by alienation, false consciousness and patriarchy, a logical inevitability.

Note that this is not the same as covering expenses and risk...as well as covering any medical consequences that may result from the pregnancy beyond the pregnancy. Unless otherwise agreed upon.

I have no problems with surrogacy. Nor do I think the concept in itself is problematic outside of the things mentioned above.

[khad]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TvRchXgiJxY/UQlwTcZRn_I/AAAAAAAAKHA/MgiFDSNPIAg/s640/achetetonbebe.jpg

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I was unaware that it was so controversial. That's most unfortunate considering short of adoption; surrogacy is like the only way women like me will ever have children. What's so bad about it anyway? I think it's be real neat to share in the gestating phase and such. Le sigh. MF babies :(