Here in (country) everyone on the left hates surrogacy with a burning passion, since it involves rich people essentially buying babies and using the bodies of poor women for their own benefit. Even the right wing parties feel sliiightly uncomfortable discussing said topics (with the exception of the extremely liberal ones who also love to act all european and modern).
Even sitcoms such as Friends or Always Sunny in Philadelphia had plotlines where this happened and they didn't pointed out how some rich fuck was taking advantage of a poor person. (Well, it was a sitcom so the poor person was either an asshole or doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, but you get the picture: whitewashing surrogacy is also bad).
So yeah, what's the deal with that? No one points out how fucked up it is???
1- Bloodline fetishism
2- Long waiting times for babies and they don't want kids/teens
It's so gross man. I've heard multiple people tell me they'd "never raise a child that isn't [their] own". Like Holy shit man, what's your problem? It's a fucking kid looking for a parent. Yet Q creeps spend all day online trying to "save the children". Hypocrisy and all that, blah blah blah.
i had someone tell me "well it's different when it's your own kid" and i quickly let her know that, despite my complex relationship with my step father, i respect him far more as a father and a man than my biological father who was and is a manipulative, abusive asshole.
i think people who really think this way are just naive, if not cognitively underdeveloped. they are among that cohort with married parents and "stability" or whatever, so they think biological relation is a key ingredient for empathy and care. my sister is a social worker and among her many stories is the lack of love, affection or kindness some people have for the children they create.
empathy and love are abilities and some people think their limitations are universal.
It also comes from people that would surprise you. I told my parents years ago that I was thinking of just adopting kids because I didn't want to bring any into this world and my mother said "it's just not the same". Excuse me? I have 2 first cousins with whom we're close who were adopted into this family. So how exactly do you think of them then? It's just so gross man.
The weirdest part is that my mother was so desperate to become a grandmother at that time (she still wants to be but I think she's altered her priorities) and yet she was still being picky about HOW she would become a grandma. The whole interaction was so gross and it further solidified my decision to keep some distance from my parents. At least my father I trust would love them (unless they came out as gay later in life 🙄).
oh, 100%. the friend who blurted that out to me is not who i would have expected to harbor that kind of sentiment, which is why i pushed back. i also had some pushback from family when i talked about the same topic, for different reasons. i.e. i wasn't/am not interested in reproducing personally. i like kids. i've worked with kids. they're funny.
i was explaining this and there was a big freakout, "don't you want kids!!" and i'm saying, "i am older now. pretty much everybody out there now already has some kids, so i'm likely to get some as a package deal. and if i get real charged up about it and come into enormous wealth, i could adopt a kid. either way, i would be passing on what i think is important: my values, my knowledge, my sense of humor, etc. not like myopia, baldness, and heart disease." and there was definitely still pushback like "no it needs to be biologically yours for some reason i can't articulate without looking like a complete asshole" which eventually petered out.
i think a lot of it has to do with media conditioning. if you go off road with your life plan, people expect or even feel owed an explanation. and the road in america is making miniature versions of yourself, which is apparently the only way some people can ever experience true, unconditional love: looking at a small, cuter version of themselves that is utterly dependent and malleable.
Like Holy shit man, what’s your problem?
How dare people have the biological drive to reproduce
That's not the issue here. If people want to have their own kids that's fine, I'm not against it. This mindset of only raising your own "biological children" though naturally supposes that stepmothers and stepfathers, and those who adopt children are not parents because they didn't have their own children.
I don't see why someone's natural instinct to rear children should care whether or not the child is biologically related to them. That's what I take issue with.
I don’t see why someone’s natural instinct to rear children should care whether or not the child is biologically related to them. That’s what I take issue with.
And that's what I'm fuckin rolling my eyes over. Yea humans are social and have more instinctive drive to care for the children of others than other species do but you're literally going "I TAKE ISSUE WITH THE ENTIRE EVOLUTION OF SEXUAL REPRODUCTION!"
Humans naturally lived in small communities, where every adult was involved in the parentage/rearing of every child in the community. Obviously each child's biological parents were the primary rearer, but the Western idea that everyone is atomised and separate from the greater society and that you're only responsibility is to yourself and your biological family is outrageous. Being unwilling to be any sort of parental figure to a child in need is frankly unnatural. Humans have a natural drive to parent children and that drive doesn't stop where the genetics do.
If you're not passing on your genes there is literally no point to sexual reproduction
I already know humans are social and have more of a drive to care for others children than most species, I literally already mentioned it, idk why you reiterated.
You can talk about how people should care for the children of others all day and you'll be right but it's seriously mind numbingly stupid to go "I just don't understand why someone's instinct cares if they are biologically related to you" when that's literally the point of the fucking instinct, that's why it exists.
It's like throwing your hands up at all the horny people in the world just flummoxed about why they want to have all this sex. It's because of millions of years of evolution inculcating a desire to reproduce, its not fucking hard to grok
And yet there are people with the drive to be motherly/fatherly/etc without having the desire to reproduce. The drive to parent can exist independently of the drive to reproduce, and while they're intricately tied I don't understand how someone can completely turn off that drive to parent. Perhaps it makes sense to you, but it doesn't make sense to me. Maybe that's because I'm one of the ones I mentioned above, I like being an uncle/fatherly figure but don't care to have children of my own.
Guess I don't understand what you're trying to explain, and tbh I don't really want to. So let's call it here.
fuck your "biological drives" that's legit fascist bullshit. when there are existing children who need parents it is absolutely fucked up to create a new child just because the existing ones have the wrong genes
"Literally the entire evolution of sexual reproduction is fascist shit!! Humans aren't animals and are immune to their nature as biological beings, just be ENLIGHTENED!"
You're an idiot fuck off
Imagine interpreting me stating a fact as me supporting it as good
you're not a wild animal, and justifying unethical bullshit with "muh biological drives" does in fact make you reactionary
you’re not a wild animal
Yeah, we are. We're Social Animals, and consequently significantly smarter & more complex than ones that aren't; we are more capable of self-reflection, and self-restraint as a consequence of it. Nevertheless, that is in fact still a kind of animal, and we are still going to be driven impulses to survive & to reproduce ingrained into us by the processes of evolution. You want to argue against this from a moralistic basis, which is nice, but you are also kind of just abandoning the principles of historical materialism in order to maintain that.
justifying unethical bullshit with “muh biological drives” does in fact make you reactionary
How would "modes of production", or the material bases of society have any relation to how we organize ourselves socially if we could just do whatever we thought was "the best idea" at any time, completely independent of our material needs or natural impulses?
Nevertheless, that is in fact still a kind of animal
I'm going to assume you're here to discuss in good faith, so I'm going to ask you to reread what you quoted and then perhaps look up the definition of "wild animal." You are not, in fact, a wild animal.
Why don't you just explain to me directly what you think the significance of that, to me somewhat pedantic & inscrutable, distinction is?
Come on. It's very difficult to believe that you don't understand what a wild animal is.
What I'm saying is that you are a moral agent. You can make decisions based on what is right, not what feels good or what your instincts tell you to do.
What I’m saying is that you are a moral agent. You can make decisions based on what is right, not what feels good or what your instincts tell you to do.
"What is right" is not a fixed proposition, it's historically determined, and within a society of classes it's determined by the material interests of that class which rules over all others.
I can choose to do many things, but it is foolish to expect me to choose self-destruction, and unwise of me to pursue it.
Lmao believe whatever you want
Continue to be puzzled at people engaging in a behavior which has been unchanged for forever
Continue thinking I'm endorsing it because you're too fucking stupid to separate the observation from your thinking I believe it's good
Im not going to blame the human species for not, as one, rising above being horny things made of meat sculpted by an absolutely blind process with only one "goal," the continued reproduction of that meat.
That doesn't mean I think everybody SHOULD, IN AN IDEAL SOCIETY, have some fucking right to have their own kid just because. Just that Im not enough of a twat to like blame people for desires and urges that are fucking built into them.
Like damn dawg
do you apply this same logic to all selfish, unethical acts taken as a result of biological urges?
No, your expression of the "biological need to reproduce" ideology is fascist. You're coming onto a supposedly marxist website and doing the "I'm actually just stating biological facts" reactionaries do when they try to do an is/ought fallacy to promote quasi-nihilist pure-id bullshit. It's dumb. Actually use your brain beyond fake buzzwords and put an onus on humans to use their brains and analysis over impulses.
Actually use your brain beyond fake buzzwords and put an onus on humans to use their brains and analysis over impulses.
Humans having the capability of doing this doesn't mean they are above and disconnected from biologically driven urges and telling yourself otherwise is fucking idealism. Don't call me a fucking reactionary just because you're too fucking stupid to understand what I'm saying, or to separate the statement that people have this drive from your idea that I'm fucking endorsing a society built on it.
People should raise kids not related to them and not be ffucking weirdos about it, but you people who are acting absolutely befuddled over someone wanting offspring that carries their genes are even fucking weirder weirdos.
I literally don't even think people should be allowed to be parents so fuck each and every one of you acting like I'm some fucking fascist nuclear family advocate or what the fuck ever made up image of me you fuckers want to hate today.
It's not idealism, weirdo. It's literally having standards for human actions.
It is fucking idealism but tell yourself whatever you want
That's it. I'm adopting you as my son now. And I'm going to cherish you because you deserve it as a human being.
Also I'm taking away your Hexbear privileges until you learn to respect other humans as equals and not opportunities for your freakish eugenics program of the self.
"people are animals with consequent biological drives"
OMG EUGENICS
literally what the fuck is wrong with you people
Get adopted, binch. I'm epicly pwning you with love right now.
To be against reproduction is antinatalist and that is not wholesome chungus and against hexbear tos, however we should mix up the babies in the maternity ward because raising a child because it’s biologically yours is wrong because it is okay, don’t think about it. Like we should put the babies on a giant spinning wheel from a game show and you take home what you get. Aren’t the many contradictions of communism so beautiful?
I think we should abolish parenthood because people shouldn't be trusted not to fuck up children just because they have the qualification of functioning genitals
BUT i recognize that literally the entire history of the evolution of sexual reproduction is about reinforcing that drive and it's fucking stupid to go "what do you mean you want YOUR OWN kid??" like of fucking course they do
Just because you accept that a parent has a right to be the caregiver of their kid doesn't mean you accept they should be allowed to do so with no oversight whatsoever
it is actually helpful to know the biological parentage of children though as it allows people to for example be informed of genetic conditions they may be susceptible to
I guess most people don't even consider adoption if they are able to have their own, I get the biological drive there or whatever. But what gets me is the people that don't want to raise someone else's kids but still get into relationships with people that have kids. I've seen too many people that couldn't afford to take care of the kids they had and didn't seem to want them but still had more just so they could have ones that were "theirs".
Absolutely. Step parents who don't want to parent a kid that isn't their own are the worst offenders in my eyes. No kid should be subjected to coldness or outright hostility from a guardian figure simply because they don't share DNA with the guardian. It's so gross.
Like both sets of my parents, two of my sisters, and a step brother are like that. At this point I'm volcel just because I think the rest of my family have done enough of all that.
I think most people think that way unless they are somehow put in a situation where a child is now in their care
Well it's funny you suggest that because I have also seen adoptees advocate against the adoption system (for straights, too).
It's been months so I don't really recall very well. I think some points were:
- You aren't entitled to children
- Some agencies sell kids for profit
- Oftentimes people are not equipped to deal with possible trauma
- Address the cause of putting kids up for adoption
- Lack of legal rights for the biological parent-child relationship
But if you ask me to elaborate I can't.
there are definitely criticisms there but the adoption system clearly is needed at present to solve the problem of caring for orphans
those all sound like long roads around just saying "you can't because capitalism+patriarchy".
Like others have said, this is controversial for US liberals. The root of the problem is that the nuclear family is the only remaining social bond in American society that exists outside of the market (kinda). So it's natural that queer Americans think that a nuclear family of their own is the only way to have do things. In ancient societies, or even just non-Angloid ones, social roles were created for queer people that let them be part of a family and contribute to a community, but here we have nothing. Commerical surrogacy is obviously fucked up, but the problem is that liberals can't really articulate anything better.
yeah it's messed up. Personally I think british law has a sensible approach that it is permitted as a freely given favor but it is forbidden for the people recieving the surrogacy service to pay for more than the expenses of the pregnancy and the surrogate is legally regarded as the mother
With the new family code, Cuba also allows non-commercial surrogacy and continues to disallow commercial surrogacy. I find it interesting that the Wikipedia summary tables for LGBT rights - which basically serves as a checklist of how friendly a country is - includes commercial surrogacy. It just feels so market-brained to think that it's "the next step" for gay liberation. :shrug-outta-hecks:
I can see how you could consider it a liberating thing for gay people but in this case it is a liberation at the expense of the exploitation of another
non-commercial surrogacy is a thing in Portugal and apprently there were only like 2 cases in the last 5 years, so it really does feel like a pointless law anticipating the commercial surrogacy.
When the new cuban family code introduced non-commercial surrogacy lots of communists here at (country) got REALLY pissed off.
Mayor Pete did it which means you are homophobic if you even raise your eyebrow about this sweatie.
The american left (or let's be honest, the queer university-adjacent left that's predominantly in NYC, Philly, and the Bay Area) tends to be more friendly towards it. There's "Full Surrogacy Now" which tends to be positive on it from a family abolitionist perspective and argues for a right to surrogacy.
I'd recommend trying to familiarize oneself with the arguments before shitting on it. Personally I haven't read it yet so I'm not going to claim to support/oppose the argument of the book
https://www.versobooks.com/products/711-full-surrogacy-now
Buying the body of a woman (for whatever purposes) is certainly wrong and disgusting. There's no shame in selling your body though, this system dehumanizes us all to a degree, it's not your fault.
This does honestly feel like kind of a goofy contradiction in need of synthesis, tbh.
I have had the same unease and I never dare share it with anyone in my pmc lib circles with many other gay couples lol. I only have a few fragmentary thoughts, which are, I suppose, how commercial surrogacy and non-commercial ones should be thought of differently — in the same way the organ donation is certainly a necessary program whilst organ trade would be dystopian levels of exploitation (but apparently I've heard there are Econ 101 text books that argue organ trade should be allowed to improve efficiency lol).
But then, as my partner and I have thought of having children, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the difference between commercial surrogacy and the adoption & foster systems in the US. I cannot help but think that whichever path we pursue it's gonna be hyper-exploitative toward the poor, not because the technology of surrogacy or the abstract idea of adoption or foster care is essentially exploitative (wouldn't that just be misguided Ludditism or social conservatism?) but because, well, capitalism turns every kind of technology, statecraft, or system of social governance into exploitation. Which is why I am less and less enthusiastic of having children.
Here in (country) everyone on the left hates surrogacy with a burning passion, since it involves rich people essentially buying babies and using the bodies of poor women for their own benefit. Even the right wing parties feel sliiightly uncomfortable discussing said topics (with the exception of the extremely liberal ones who also love to act all european and modern).
Humanist Marx did but he later walked back on it
No I mean he didn't thought division of labour was good for the people, despite being necessary for a developed society. His dream was for me to clock in at the coal mine at 9 am, clock out at 11 am, be a carpenter for 3 hours and then be a fisherman for the rest of the day
Or something like that,
Well yes that's definitely present in the 1844 economic and philosophical manifesto but it's a position he gradually grew out of
Aw shit, that's it, I'm leaving communism for whatwver ideology that lets me be a coalmining sailor
To be fair I think there's an arguement for "humanist marx" as opposed to or in compliment to his later work. As much as people deride fully automated luxury communism, it did open up a utopian imaginary that I think was helpful for making the left relavant to our generation
ehh under our healthcare system not giving a surrogate money they'd have to pay a bunch of money, even if they were the platonic ideal of a volunteer surrogate.
so its very justifiable people are getting money involved, and after the future parents are paying medical costs, well its just nice if they pay back some lost labor time and a bit more for the trouble. like at what point does that become bad, and "buying" a baby? but these are questions people of equal socioeconomic standings who personally know each other and all want to do it navigate.
like sure, there's some businesses and sleazes financializing it who should be immediately shot but this seems more like a thing open to abuse & bad mostly because poverty exists but shouldn't be illegal. we can do the most to improve it by reducing poverty and healthcare access, and when it doesn't cost a bunch & derail one's livelihood to become a surrogate or just pregnant we can start talking medical ethics.
so yeah the people talking 'non-commercial' surrogacy are basically onto it but its contingent on a bunch of prerequisites the US does not have. and we absolutely should not support any kinds of law in the US giving authorities closer eyes on pregnant people at this juncture, especially with the lgbt angle. i mean we probably won't have to imagine in a few years, it'll probably be illegal to be pregnant and known lgbt in florida
I don't really understand the issue. What are the actual negative consequences of allowing it?
I think the main worry is that the market forces at play will drive wealthy women to forgo pregnancy for themselves and poor women to take it up as an income source, which will mean that all of the medical and social issues that can come with having a child will become stratified by class and become yet another form of systemic oppression to add to the pile and make things worse than they are.
Basically, yeah.
Liberals usually use the excuse of "think of the poor qgays not being able to continue their bloodlineee" (obviously said in more whitewashed terms) but that's bullshit. Rich women are already using surrogacy and have been doing it for a while.
Doesn't really answer my question. A woman working at McDonald's is being exploited, that doesn't mean that it should be illegal for women to work at McDonald's - ofc ideally wage labor and exploitation should be abolished, but that should be addressed holistically, not by pointing at random things and banning them. Is there evidence that women who engage in surrogacy have a high regret rate?
I don't really agree with the framing that surrogacy is the same as "buying a baby" and I'd rather base my beliefs on actual evidence and material analysis, which is why I asked about negative consequences and not like, whether you think it's bad vibes.
It literally is buying a baby.
Sure, it doesn't have negative consequences, which is why only desperate, poor women are forced into it. Or how the surrogate companies have lots of fucked up conditions in their contract. Or how they pay extremely little. Or how it leaves the women with life-long consequences...
It literally is buying a baby.
You can repeat that over and over at me but if it didn't convince me the first time I'm not sure why you think stating it a third time would. I don't agree with that framing, and I'm reserving judgement on the issue until I can look at actual evidence, which I'm guessing you're not interested in providing, in which case I just don't really care.
Quick Google search turned up this.
Ten years following the birth of the surrogacy child, surrogate mothers scored within the normal range for self-esteem and did not show signs of depression as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory. Marital quality remained positive over time. All surrogates reported that their expectations of their relationship with the intended parents had been either met or exceeded and most reported positive feelings towards the child. In terms of expectations for the future, most surrogates reported that they would like to maintain contact or would be available to the child if the child wished to contact them. None expressed regrets about their involvement in surrogacy.
Do you have a better source, or is this all just knee-jerk?
Oh cool. So they don't experience depression 10 years after being exploited. Good to know.
It's hilarious how low your standards are. Let's flip this: why the hell should buying a baby (and yes, i don't care about your feelings, it literally is what's happening. I can say "buying a womb if you prefer) be legal??
If you actually looked at that study - which at this point it seems clear that you have zero interest in actual evidence - it also surveyed them after one year and found similar results.
It’s hilarious how low your standards are. Let’s flip this: why the hell should buying a baby (and yes, i don’t care about your feelings, it literally is what’s happening. I can say "buying a womb if you prefer) be legal??
I don't really care how you want to frame it, because I don't base my beliefs on framing, I base them on evidence and material analysis. But since you seem entirely disinterested in that and are operating purely on vibes and framing, I'll play your game: why do you think it's ok for the state to legislate what women can and can't do with our bodies?
Murray Rothbard was an American economist and libertarian. He said that selling children as consumer goods in accord with market forces—while "superficially monstrous"—will benefit "everyone" involved in the market: "the natural parents, the children, and the foster parents purchasing". The US has embraced this.
I know a woman who did a surrogacy and it seemed to work out well for her - but the reason she was willing to do it in the first place was because she was a single mother already and really needed the cash.
I guess I'm a centrist on this one. If you're gonna pay your surrogate's medical costs, that's fine - but paying them a wage for the use of their organs feels like crossing a threshold that shouldn't be crossed. Unless society can provide a decent standard of living for everyone within it regardless of their personal situation, the potential for economically-driven perverse incentives will never go away, and the practice will always be tainted by them.
