Hand Over the Uterus and Nobody Gets Hurt

From Australia comes this thinly veiled threat of an article about how unfair it is that Australians aren’t allowed to rent the wombs of other Australians. You see, there are people out there who “require the services of a surrogate.” Not desire: require as they require food, air, water, shelter, and sunlight. Yet all “Australian states and territories, except the Northern Territory” have banned binding Australian women to a nine-month slavery contract. So the people who require the use of a woman’s body are forced, forced I tell you, to go overseas and take advantage of poorer foreign women. “[B]ecause the only surrogacy permitted in Australia is altruistic surrogacy,” and, as it turns out, the average woman doesn’t want to make a free baby for someone else. Funny that.

“This is true,” the article points out, “even in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT, where it is a criminal offence to enter into a compensated surrogacy arrangement overseas.”

Obviously these lawbreakers must be given what they want. I mean, if we make nice things expensive, thieves will steal them. If we buy a house, burglars will burgle it. That’s why we have to allow anyone who asks to kick us out of  our houses and take our stuff. Obviously.

The article declares laws against foreign-womb-renting a failure. Why? Nobody enforces them: “There has not been a single prosecution, let alone a conviction, for pursuing extra-territorial surrogacy.” Then the problem here would seem to be the lack of prosecution rather than the law itself, wouldn’t it?

Is anyone else reminded of certain arguments for prostitution? I know I am. But that’s not the worst part. The worst part is when the author invokes the UN Rights of the Child in defense of surrogacy:

“Article 7 provides that children have a right to an identity and to know and be cared for by their parents. Children born through surrogacy may have up to five parent-like people: two intended parents, a sperm donor, an egg donor and the surrogate. In this context, Article 7 is best understood as meaning that children have a right to know their biological and gestational parents and to be cared for by their intended parents.”

PARENT-LIKE PEOPLE. If anyone called any of my four parents that to my face, I’d pop’em right in the snoot.

“With many overseas surrogacies, the record-keeping is poor or non-existent, making it impossible for a child to find out their genetic origins.”

Then, once again, the problem is with record-keeping, not with a ban on being able to rent local and/or foreign wombs. Don’t you think that if the legal and lawbreaking womb-renters of Australia really found this record-keeping so important, they would already have demanded and gotten it? I know I do. I don’t think the average womb-renter gives a rat’s ass about the incubator they purchase, her identity, or the child’s right to know where s/he came from. If they did, they wouldn’t do overseas surrogacy, especially since, as the author tells us, Australia is scrupulous about such things:

“Australia has one of the best systems in the world for recording persons who donate eggs and sperm. This ensures that children born through surrogacy in Australia will be able to identify all the people associated with their creation.”

But PAPs don’t really care because, again, they will be forced to do unethical, illegal things if they can’t buy a woman’s reproductive system outright.

“We need to acknowledge and address the legitimate fears that people have about surrogacy. But rather than trying to stop these scientific advances, we should put in place safeguards to prevent exploitation of vulnerable women and protect the rights of children born through surrogacy.”

Help US help YOU sell us your body! Paid surrogacy IS the exploitation of vulnerable women, FFS. What “safeguards” would you propose? Because allowing only altruistic surrogacy seems like a very good safeguard to me.

As if all that weren’t bad enough, the author has the brazen gonads to quote Gibran on how “your children are not your children.” Of course they aren’t–they’re ours. Sell us your children now, Australian women, lest we be forced to commit crimes in the name of parenthood!

“This reminds us that how a child is conceived, and how a child is born, is largely irrelevant. What is important is that children are loved and their inherent dignity respected.”

And that is why, when a woman gives birth in Australia, she tenderly places the baby in a random crib in the maternity ward, blindfolds herself and spins around until she’s dizzy, and then takes home the first baby her hand happens to light upon.

For the millionth fucking time, how a child is conceived and born is not irrelevant in any way to anyone. Even people who are willing to hurt anyone and pay any price in order to get a baby they can call their own are lying to themselves about this, and they know it. They know damned well it’s important to them where they came from and who they look like. (In fact, didn’t you just argue that it is important that children know these things because it’s a human right?) The reason adopting/womb-renting couples want a baby rather than a waiting child is that they want to replicate the experience of raising one’s biological child from day one as closely as possible. Because it matters.

The article’s author is a professor in “Human Rights Law.” There is no human right to rent another person’s reproductive system.

 

Advertisements

14 Comments

Filed under Colonialism ROCKS!, Misognyny

14 responses to “Hand Over the Uterus and Nobody Gets Hurt

  1. Oh, bullshit. And this is the second such article i’ve heard of this week. The first one was this:

    http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/20/childless-uk-couples-forced-abroad-surrogates?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Note the title: “forced”, the poor dears.
    Some days, the level of entitlement seriously gets to me.

  2. I’ve shared this on FB. It might make various friends uncomfortable. Or it might not. But it needed to be said.

  3. Von

    “This reminds us that how a child is conceived, and how a child is born, is largely irrelevant.” Those things are never irrelevant and never will be. We have already seen the damage of o/s surrogacy e.g the couple who accepted one of a pair of twins but not the other, the use paedophiles are able to make of surrogacy to obtain children and become parents.

  4. A

    Great Blog! I am actually starting to become very anti gay because of the hate and vitriol I have had in my comments not supporting surrogacy or adoption, especially from gay men on FB..I was pro gay and supportive, but I’m changing my stance due to the fact that so many of them are so anti woman, and so anti best interests of the child…very self centrist and narcissist en masse… It’s shocking the abuse one draws when not supporting their “entitlement”: to be “parents”… via surrogacy or adoption.

    • I’m not anti-gay, but I am very anti-entitlement.

      • I Hate Adoption

        I totally agree with you A. I don’t think a lot of adoptees and natural mothers get that they have been against us from the beginning. Rosie Blowhard Odonnell’s brother Daniel, a gay marriage activist and elected official told a group of birthmothers who were rallying to get adoption records opened that he will “never” support adoptees having our OBC’s. Nice huh? What a fucking hypocrite. There are clinics now for gay men to have babies created for them to adopt through surrogacy and yes police files and stats prove that most gay men molest the male children they adopt which makes me want to throw up. They scream discrimination against themselves too everyday but support discrimination and abuse against us from corrupt laws and themselves and legal abuse and discrimination of and towards our mothers. I fucking hate them too partly because you are right they hate women and I personally have been treated like shit by gays because I am female but of course according to them that only makes me homophobic (eyeroll).

      • “Most” gay men molest their children? Got a source for that?

      • A

        Snarky, I’m not really anti gay as such, as I have numerous family and friends who are and I love them and support them, but imo, the odious entitlement that I have seen emminating out of this group when challenged is diabolical. You must have read some of the comments on the conversation piece regarding surrogacy as a form of “income” and the very manipulative doublespeak that was used by one particular commenter there. I’m anti- entitlement all the way in this, as an adoptee, I have a huge issue with adoption. surrogacy etc and the effect it has on the Child and Mother plus the biological family. thanks for your reply.

  5. Anonymous

    Read all the proof on the website Americans For Truth About Homosexuality Adoptosnark.

  6. I’ve always thought infertility must be an extraordinarily painful experience, but “forced” to seek a surrogate? Especially since poor and middle-class infertile couples don’t have that choice at all. I wish people would wake up and realize that their own pain does not give them special privileges.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s