120

Pope calls for universal ban on surrogacy in global roundup of threats to peace and human dignity (apnews.com)

submitted 10 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

67 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Pope Francis called Monday for a universal ban on the “despicable” practice of surrogate motherhood, as he included the “commercialization” of pregnancy in an annual speech listing threats to global peace and human dignity.

In a foreign policy address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, Francis lamented that 2024 had dawned at a time in history in which peace is “increasingly threatened, weakened and in some part lost.”

Citing Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, migration, climate crises and the “immoral” production of nuclear and conventional weapons, Francis delivered a lengthy laundry list of the ills afflicting humanity and the increasing violation of international humanitarian law that allows them.

But Francis also listed smaller-scale issues that he said were threats to peace and human dignity, including surrogacy. Francis said the life of the unborn child must be protected and not “suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 32 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I can kind of see the angle with turning kids into a commodity that only well situated people can afford (if they can’t or don’t want to have one themselves), as it is now.

On the other hand, banning the practice is impractical, intruding on personal choices, and most of all, cruel to couples who can’t conceive a child themselves, be it because of infertility or because they are a non-heterosexual couple.

But then there is also the argument to be made that people should adopt already existing kids instead. Any child that has to grow up in foster care or generally without a loving home is one too many.

Not sure where i stand on this myself actually. People should be allowed free choice of course, but that inevitably leads to this bias towards the rich.

No normal or even poor couple, no matter how good parents they would be, could afford or convince a surrogate mother to bear their child. And allowing this to be a privilege for the rich seems mega fucked.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 13 points 10 months ago

I don't think the objection is to the concept of surrogacy as much as it the commerical aspect of it. Kind of like how if it was legal to sell your own organs the poor might be forced by society to do so.

I don't think he'd have an issue of doing it as a favor based on the wording.

[-] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago

Some quick info on adoption: at least where I live, there aren't a giant list of babies waiting for someone to adopt them. There are lots of kids (usually age 5+) who need loving homes, but have mental and/or physical special needs, or behavioral issues (due to abuse, etc).

Most people who want to adopt a baby are going to be on a waiting list for a year or more (depending on how selective they are). And this is also cost-prohibitive (anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000, in my area) unless you don't need an agency.

[-] wjrii@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

Yup. In the US, I think there are something like 20 potential adoptive parents qualified for every infant that comes through the private and semi-private systems. There is literally zero "saving" that goes in with healthy infant adoption. If people just don't want to be pregnant or have some genetic issues (official or not) that they'd rather not pass on, then there's a place for it (though I wish it were regulate much, much better), but they need to understand that it's for their own benefit and to just get in line.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

We don’t ban things because they’re not affordable enough. We would ban quite a lot of medicine if that were so. This is religious horseshit trying to sweeten itself with a populist angle.

[-] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 10 months ago

Im not saying we should ban it, I’m saying we should find a way so not rich people have access too. Perhaps introduce some restrictions to that effect, but ultimately it is individual choice.

Also, I am from one of the myriad of places outside the United States that has socialized healthcare.

For the most part we don’t have medicine or treatments that people need to be able to afford. Insurance will cover anything.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Have you ever considered that the high expense of paying someone to be pregnant on your behalf pays a great deal of cash to potentially poor women? Just because rich people are the ones paying for it doesn’t mean they are the only ones that benefit from it. I’d like to imagine a public healthcare system that will pay for the procedure if you can convince a friend or relative to carry the baby for you. That’s conceivable to me. But being pregnant is 9 months of hard work and has health risks. Even if we can imagine making surrogacy available to all, it’s hard to imagine making surrogates easily available to all. I say if you have the wealth to make this a job for someone, there’s nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of women in the world who have very healthy bodies and can tolerate a pregnancy well who don’t have high paying professional skills.

So while we wait for the perfect egalitarian world to arrive where wealth has no meaning and everything is equally available to all, should we ban this? That’s the only question, really.

[-] Whoresradish@lemmy.world -4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think choosing surrogacy over adoption says something about a person character. To me it says you care more about your genes than the child. And then you have pieces of shit like this russian oligarchs young wife.

https://her.womenworking.com/24-yr-old-woman-21-children-wants-100-kids-childhood-dream-big-happy-family-547687

I admit that I may be ignorant to parts adoption vs surrogacy, but I don't like what I have seen online.

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Wow so incredibly judgy.

Like a lot of people who know nothing about the issue, you assume that adoption is easily available without limit and the reality is more complex. Unless you are taking special needs children into your home to care for them, don’t go around telling people they have an obligation to adopt.

I know a couple who used surrogacy because she had a health issue that would make pregnancy high risk for her. If you want to get in her face and say she is not allowed to use technology to make a decision that everyone else gets to make, and she’s a bad person unless she adopts, that’s your fever dream to enjoy on your own.

Banning the technology outright because of what a Russian oligarch does with it? Insane.

[-] Whoresradish@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago

Okay, so instead of insulting me, try to enlighten me. I already admitted that I have not had any direct influence with someone who chose surrogacy. What I have seen online is that adoption is cheaper and equally as long as surragacy. The only benefit I see is that the parent will know their genes are in the child, and a poor woman will get a paycheck for using her body. Please explain why I shouldn't judge those who choose surragacy?

https://adoption.org/why-is-it-so-hard-to-adopt

[-] scarabic@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

You’ve already ignored everything I’ve done to enlighten you on this topic. I’m not going to keep trying. Your attitudes about having children are simplistic and ignorant. These aren’t insults. An insult would be that you’re ugly too.

[-] BrazenSigilos@ttrpg.network 3 points 10 months ago

Sounds to me like there is a class of people that shouldn't continue to hold position. Even Jesus said the rich where detestable. "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven." Once 'rich' and 'poor' aren't a viable distinction anymore, the problem you describe is resolved. Not that other problems wouldn't be present, just saying some change is needed.

[-] qyron@sopuli.xyz 1 points 10 months ago

Surrogacy as a concept always sounded very shady.

this post was submitted on 08 Jan 2024

120 points (88.5% liked)

World News

38978 readers

1254 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.