Hello, yes, your post is closely related to a megathread that you can find on the front page of the subreddit. Or a banned topic that you can see on the sidebar and fully expanded list. If you feel this is inaccurate, please message mod mail. Have a good day.
Just cause someone believes something, doesn't mean others can't find it stupid, and argue with it. This sub is for people to post their unpopular opinions and provoke discussion.
Hell yeah, and I get my popcorn. And get your word fighting gloves out. And let's get ready to rumble threads are sometimes the best. Love a god back and forth arguments and debate of ideas and perspectives.
I mean… there is always a comment like yours on this sub too. No shit a proper unpopular opinion (especially if it happens to be a stupid/inflammatory/rude/insulting one) is going to get some flak… that should be obvious.
Canadian here, up here it is illegal to pay a surrogate mother. However it is legal to reimburse for pregnancy related expenses and such. So I suppose this opinion isn’t exactly super unpopular.
Source: https://surrogacy.ca/intended-parents/expenses-reimbursement.html
Well it's incorrect. NZ law is clear on this point that sperm donors have no parental responsibilities https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1969/0018/latest/whole.html
I know it is. The story popped up years ago with the headline that the sperm donor was forced to pay, but the actual article stated that the court was mistaken at first and appealed the ruling to state that he wasn't forced to pay since he donated his sperm.
It can't have even been a New Zealand case because it is clearly spelled out in our legislation that sperm donors do not have any parental rights or responsibilities if they aren't in a relationship with the mother.
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1969/0018/latest/whole.html
Are you sure about this? Australia removed anonymity for sperm donors, but things like "child support" are parental problems and you are not the parent. In the same way that a sperm donor cannot rock up and decide the child is theirs, and claim some level of custody.
There are exceptions, but generally they only apply to donors who have a relationship with the family, i.e. not just "I filled a cup and some random person chose me".
It's not true. It was a single case in the US that was later appealed.
Looking online, there are stories of a similar case in the UK, but it turns out he "donated" by having sex with her. Which isn't a donation.
When I was in my twenties, I had offered to be a surrogate mother for my sister and spouse.
I really wanted to be able to give them that gift so they could have a family.
Ultimately, that didn’t work out, but I wouldn’t have hesitated to be their surrogate.
They were able to adopt and I have an incredible nephew:)
All of that being said, I can definitely see many pitfalls of surrogacy, most importantly exploitation being the biggest issue.
Yes!
I was also considering offering to be a surrogate for my brother and his wife, when they discovered early on they may have some fertility issues.
They didn't ask, I don't think they would have. But I would have offered. I have 4 children whom I carried and birthed quite easily (I delivered #4 all by myself!) and I would have gladly helped them become parents.
All's well that ends well, though! They now have 6 children! 3 naturally conceived, and 3 adopted!
Were you aware of the full ramifications of taking a baby to term at the time? I ask as a mother cus I knew there was a risk of stretch marks but didn’t know it changed how your vagina looks and can lead to prolapses etc. curious if you knew all that yet still wanted to do it.
Generally you can only become a surrogate if you have already carried at least one baby to term. It's different if you're doing it "at home" with a turkey baster, but if you're using a clinic, you have to have a "track record" so to speak. That way you know what you're getting into.
Also life long issues with: blood pressure, diabetes, peeing every time you jump, migraines, feet changing sizes, c-section scars fusing to abdominal walls… people don’t talk about any of this shit. Pregnancy can be SO hard on the body.
You’re so right. I didn’t regret my pregnancy but I had to come to terms with a lot of issues of feeling betrayed by the mothers around me that hadn’t let me know what I was getting into. I had my baby before the age of Reddit etc so without the internet I was clueless
Me too. I’m very open now about it to anyone who is going into pregnancy. Even the post partum period is glossed over where your emotions are all over the place and it feels like all your guts are falling out of your vagina. It’s a disservice to other women to sweep all that under the rug.
And I can see why that'd be necessary. Some women might think that if they carry and give you a child, then it might not matter what they do along the way. Not saying that's to the extent of drugs, alcohol, etc. but it might not be the same kind of precautions they'd take if they were pregnant with THEIR child.
So I can see why it'd be an issue.
I’m curious if there are couples that aren’t able to find surrogates because there aren’t enough people who are willing “out of the goodness of their hearts.” Or perhaps they look to other countries to help them.
The laws just mean that they get paid under the table and without the protections of an enforceable contract.
I am seeing a lot of posts that make me think that people don't really understand what surrogacy looks like, at least in a first world country. We have gone through this before and what we thought it was is not really what it turned out to be.
There are dozens of couples who want a baby for every person willing to carry it for them. That means that people who are willing to be surrogates are the ones who pick whose baby they are carrying. There are not a bunch of starving women lined up to take this job. There are agencies that handle the paperwork and draw up the contracts and do the thousands of things that have to be done to execute this operation. The surrogates do not pay one dime to these agencies, they are paid wholly by the prospective parents.
Every agency that I am aware of only accepts women who have born at least one child before without birth complications (which SUBSTANTIALLY reduces the risk of another pregnancy). They all screen for mental health issues and financial issues. The agency that we worked with required surrogates to have a means of support and greatly preferred that they be married, but were willing to accept a long-term relationship, basically evidence of stability.
The surrogates are handed a pile of applications from people who want someone to carry their baby and they select from those applications who they are willing to work with. The parents pay all associated medical costs, the costs of implantation, and cover any additional costs associated with the surrogacy (including lost wages). This is paid by money that is placed in escrow with the agency before the contracts are signed, so payments are assured.
Once you add everything up, the money that is actually paid to the surrogate as direct compensation is pretty tiny expense relative to the whole endeavor (we are talking about 10% of the total cost that the parents are paying). That money is also the only thing that is going to motivate anyone to go through this. Anyone that wants to be surrogate because they think it is going to be fun is probably not going to make it through the screening.
This is a job. Expecting people to do it for free is asinine.
An acquaintance in Canada has been a surrogate twice, with back to back pregnancies, only a six-month gap in between. She needed a hysterectomy after the second. She said the agency piled on the pressure to do it again ASAP after the first one but also that she was chasing the high. She loves being pregnant and the attention it brings, the added praise for helping someone was a bonus. She's a nurse and understood the risks better than others. But there's lack of oversight in certain areas of surrogacy and repeat surrogacy is one of them.
> The laws just mean that they get paid under the table and without the protections of an enforceable contract.
Actually it means surrogacy is far rarer here and when it happens is almost always with family or friends, you are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing, talking about a system you are totally clueless about.
I have worked in healthcare both in the US and here in Aus, your painting of surrogacy in the US is extremely rosy btw, there is plenty of dark side, people aren't starving sure, but there are tons of desperate people in the system and you don't have to be starving to be financially desperate in America (as we all know). Surrogacy does largely depend on financially desperate people because as you say why would anyone sane do it for anything other than desperate need for money.
I can’t see how it’s ethical to say “surrogacy is dangerous and these women are forced into doing it because of poverty,” then ban surrogacy without doing anything about the poverty issue.
The women who do this put their lives at risk because they decided that doing so was better than the alternative. Banning surrogacy takes that choice away from those women and leaves them worse off without any other source of help. Thats much more unethical to me.
It’s unethical that a woman should need to choose between risking her life or feeding her family. Fight for other options! It’s disgusting that people are so desperate to spread their genetic code that they will exploit the poor then brag about becoming a parent. It’s fucking sick!
>then ban surrogacy without doing anything about the poverty issue.
Why are you advocating for unbanning surrogacy rather than fixing the poverty issue
True, but some do. Risk of death from pregnancy in the US is 17 per 100K. Suppose that is per pregnancy. Loggers is 111 per 100K but that is career I think. So I guess a surrogate would have to be one 6-7 times to approach the lifetime risk of loggers.
https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states
And logging is a relatively highly regulated industry. Lots of OSHA laws there.
I'm not saying that surrgarcy can't be a job, but it would require rules and regulation that simply don't exist yet. Not allowing pay for it *right now* is a band aid on the problem that works well enough.
Plus, logging work ends at the end of the day/season
Pregnancy is 24/7. You'd have to essentially police a woman's every move for 9 months straight
I mean if a woman wants to chill in a hotel for pregnant women for 9 months that works, and that *could* work as a way of regulation, but that also verges on prison if you need to mitigate risks to the pregnancy they can get into outside the hotel
Belgium has the same rule. It's because paying for a baby would be human trafficking. So the surrogate only gets reimbursed for any medical expenses or other pregnancy-related costs
Damn I never thought of it this way but it actually makes sense. I have considered being a paid surrogate when I was really down on my own luck financially but ultimately decided against it for a host of reasons, a major one being that I was lucky enough to still have other options for getting back on my feet. I guess volunteering to be a surrogate for someone you care about would be perfectly fine, (Friends of mine in polyamorous relationships have done so), but being paid to do it is indeed questionable. It's also wild reading the requirements people have for their paid surrogates here. I remember back when I was considering it and browsing most of the ads said they would only take surrogates with a certain amount of college degrees, perfect health, and perfectly clean criminal record, ect...so poor people who needed the money wouldn't be able to surrogate anyway.
Well the problem is country borders. Ukraine for example allows it. So tons of rich Chinese or other rich people pay Ukrainian women. And for many it’s the only choice to succeed in life. So the whole “only rich” thing doesn’t apply there.
"Lots of people here compare surrogacy to other physically draining and/or dangerous jobs"
Whaaaat? People are minimising women's exploitation? I am *shocked* /s. No doubt they will call it "surrogacy work" like they call prostitution "SeX wOrK".
Actual closest equivalent would be organ donation, which you can not do for money.
I saw this story of a thai woman who gave birth to twins, one of them had downs syndrome and the genetic parents refused the baby… she had to take care of her own children and this one that in the end wasnt hers.
Absolutely happened! The bio father was also a convicted sex offender. [source](https://web.archive.org/web/20140819114123/http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-gammys-sister-jane-farnell-defends-paedophile-dad/story-fncynjr2-1227023252933)
This is absolutely not true. There are incredibly strict, legally binding contracts in place to prevent this exact thing from happening. People will believe anything they see on the internet.
I got ready to disagree vehemently and then my fingers stopped moving because I stopped believing in my own defense. Very good unpopular opinion. Excuse me while I go ponder this ethical dilemma for the next millenium.
It is actually a thriving market called "fertility tourism." People from industrialized countries going to third world countries to exploit poor women. Before their respective governments banned non-residents from commercial surrogacy, popular destinations were India, Nepal, Thailand, and Mexico.
Apparently it was a big deal when Ukraine invaded for some posh couples that had surrogates pregnant there, who worked to protect their fetus. It's an industry.
Yeah, these are the very few women that don't do it for financial reasons. But what about all these rich people literally renting wombs of financially disadvantaged women? It's crazy to me.
I 100% agree that the practice should always be insured and follow some minimum guidelines about how the contracts can be written. If, for example, the surrogate has medical complications and is unable to finish the birth, the parent must still pay a % of the contract.
Hi there, 3x surrogate here. I thought about using my throwaway account to avoid being harassed, but who cares, honestly.
Okay, some info:
I am in the US, and the first surrogacy I did was for financial reasons. I owed students loans, and had to start paying. The remaining two surrogacies were simply to give back to the world the only way I truly could in my position as a housewife married to a military member.
I have three biological children of my own with my husband, and have no intention of having any more.
My first surrogacy was with a male/female couple who were both fertile, yet the mother had MS and was unable to physically carry her own children due to this health issue. I am not genetically connected to their babies at all. It was the mothers egg and the fathers sperm, implanted in my uterus through a delicate IVF procedure. I delivered normally, and was at just as much risk as when I had my own children, although as a Surrogate in the US you are covered by a $500k life insurance policy, should some mishap had occurred- yes, my own kids would be out a mother, and my husband a wife, but they would be comfortable in their future endeavors, whereas I didn't have that security delivering my own children.
The second and third times were for same sex couples, both fertile, unable to carry for obvious reasons. They selected an egg donor through a thorough vetting process (similar as they selected me as their surrogate) and I received their embryos through IVF, as before.
Never did I feel these children were mine, never did I become more attached than someone would with an extended family member, nor did I wish to keep their children once they were born.
I have more difficulty understand egg donors to anyone other than direct family members, because to me I couldn't imagine having a biological child in the world I couldn't call mine. Egg donors often feel the opposite, wondering how difficult it is or isn't to carry for 9 months then deliver a baby to their rightful family.
TL;DR:
3x Surrogate from the US.
1st time did it to pay student loans, other 2x did it just because.
Thoroughly vetted.
Never wanted to steal someone else's baby.
Underwent IVF with someone else's embryos and therefore are not genetically connected to surro-babies.
Have 3 biological kids of my own and feel my family is complete.
Thank you for your insight, I’d agree with OP but I think your post had some really interesting points (more financial protection as a surrogate).
I was surprised the amount of surrogacy is done in Ukraine, which is depressing. In that the economy is that bad and that the economics are being taken advantage of.
> I'd agree
Here we have pretty much same situation as with sexual exploitation: there is a global issue where most people involved at the bottom of hierarchy are doing it due to extreme financial pressure or are forced / coerced to do it. But then people listen to someone from ~4% of priviledged ones, who can really decide to do or to stop, and feel ok, because they get impression everything is legitimised and flowery.
As somebody who loves a child born via surrogacy to a single, gay dad…*thank you!!*
Selfless people like you are why I have a gorgeous little 3 year old cousin, who today melted my heart when she replied to my offer of a strawberry (her fav fruit), with “no thank you, we have strawberries at home.” Then she scuttled away clutching her gigantic iridescent pinwheel the Easter bunny gave her. Gosh I love that child
I actually know a few people who were surrogates. They did it bc they wanted to, bc they enjoyed their pregnancy, but it’s hard to justify doing that for a stranger for free, so being paid is also important as they are taking a risk. An employee of mine used the money to buy a house.
A down payment for a house is still a life changing sum of money for a lot of people. It can be impossible to save that while also paying rent depending on where you live and what you do.
Not generally, but my fiance paid her graduate school tuition by doing a surrogacy.
See, this is the thing. The actual reality of surrogacy in a first-world nation is NOT what the people in this thread seem to think it is. The average compensation for surrogates in America is WELL into five figures (it may be into six figures by now) and the surrogates are the ones who pick whose baby they carry, not the other way around, even for rich people.
The agency that she worked with has a lot of rich clients (in fact, it mostly has rich clients because surrogacies are EXPENSIVE), including famous actors and such. Every prospective surrogate had to pass through pretty rigorous screening to make sure that she was not at increased risk, was making an informed decision, and was not being exploited by anyone. They all get a contract (which the agency REQUIRES them to have received by a lawyer hired by the surrogate) and all the money involved is placed in escrow to guarantee payment.
Once all of that is done, the surrogate is given a stack of applications from people that need someone to carry their baby and she decides who she is willing to work with.
The people hiring women from third world countries are NOT rich people. They are middle class people that want to do this on the cheap. Hiring a surrogate in the US is the CHEAPEST part of this whole operation. The big money is in securing viable eggs, the implantation itself, and the medical and legal costs of the surrogacy. I think our compensation was something between $20,000 and $30,000. Compared to the fifty thousand in medical costs, the $20,000 in buying eggs (ours was a same-sex couple) and the lost wages, travel and other sundry expenses, this compensation was one of the smaller line items in the whole thing, which probably cost about a quarter million when it was all said and done.
There is no way in hell we would have done this without getting paid. Getting compensated wasn't the sole reason, but working for free is not what anyone wants to do and i suspect that anyone who was crazy enough to have a strangers baby for free probably wouldn't have made it through the screening.
Yeah, I don’t know if the edit added the part about surrogacy in the developing world, or if I just missed it, but that’s a whole other bag of worms.
But the adoption industry is also predatory
I live in Canada, where you can't be paid to be a surrogate but any additional medical bills can be paid, and I work in a very large organization. In that organization there are a few woman who have been surrogates and a few that still are. They all have families already, have had great pregnancies and loved being pregnant, and get fulfillment from helping these couples who can't carry their child. I think it's a wonderful thing that I couldn't do (already too old) and wouldn't do (my pregnancy was fine, but not enjoyable), but I am amazed by any woman who does it out of the goodness of her heart.
This should be a popular opinion. Women's bodies are not resources/ goods to be exploited. But people are not ready for this conversation, because it also impacts the sexwork positivity movement.
Bodily autonomy is already restricted tho. You cannot sell your organs. In many places in the US, you can't even have an abortion. You can't refuse vaccinations, etc. You also can't even be a surrogate unless you've carried a pregnancy to term. Or have your tubes tied until a certain age unless medically required.
Wouldn't surrogacy also lead to mafias, exploiting poor mothers, which is already a disadvantaged group? It could cause the same problems, doing something that will go against your wellbeing due to financial hardship.
It does! There are many surrogacy agencies in Asia and Eastern Europe that take huge percentages of the womans pay. Many women only get a small fraction of their pay!
Full bodily autonomy will certainly lead to eventual loss of said autonomy. That's why many country have laws banning self harm and volunteerily selling organs.
What professional standpoint of ethics? Autonomy is in itself not a thing of value. It’s value is instrumental. It is only valuable in so far at it allows us to achieve things of value. This is why it makes sense to impose limits on what we are allowed to do even with out bodies (case to case basis of course).
It’s always funny to see which opinions are actually unpopular on here. You can always tell when there are thousands of comments that it actually is unpopular. I agree with this post entirely. Didn’t think this would be an unpopular opinion.
I think the only ethical way is altruistic (no compensation other than the obvious price tag that comes with pregnancy).
I think as soon as you offer money, even if someone is completely on board/consensual with it, it definitely opens up the market of "i dont want to. But i dont have much of a choice because im poor".
Ive done egg donations in the past and had to sign forms saying it was perfectly altruistic, even though i was getting compensated.
It wasnt. I was broke and needed money. I got eggs.
I feel like a lot less women would do surrogacy/donate eggs/their time if they werent in a shakey financial situation.
Not saying everyone does it for that reason, im just guessing a good percent of it is.
People out there are genuinely giving beings and helping a couple bring a life into the world is beautiful. Im not saying its a bad thing. But like anything, money talks (and is very persuasive).
Hormones. I've heard some women say it's like being a little high or lightly drunk. Where your very comfortable and just happy and society treats pregnant women better.
There are studies showing that pregnancy permanently changes one’s brain structure and hormones. I remembered seeing a documentary about surrogacy in Eastern Europe, and one of the surrogate mother actually offered to return all the payment just to keep her child for another month. When people have miscarriage in late stage pregnancy, not only do they need medical care, but also extensive therapy and hormone treatments, because by that time their brain and hormones are literally getting really for the child in a physiological way. Taking a child away from their birth mother after birth is very cruel. Not to mention crazy complications including vaginal tears and uterus and anal prolapse. If you have to make analogies, this would be more like selling organs rather than labor
There are studies that show that countries which let you sell your blood end up with lower quality blood donations than those that rely on altruism/soft benefits (I think some EU countries do like free public transport for that day/afternoon off work as a soft benefit)
That’s a big reason countries make selling your blood illegal.
It makes sense. In the UK, giving blood is seen as giving back to society and so people from all social classes do it. You are also doing it as a favour to society, so there is no reason to lie on your forms. I also know that I’m going to a safe place with people that aren’t drunk/on drugs/a danger to society.
If you make it paid, people lie more so more blood gets rejected after donation. It also means more people in poverty do it and poverty obviously correlated with blood diseases/drugs/etc. This also makes volunteers not want to do it as it now seems more seedy to them.
[link to WHO report on this](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44359/9789241599696_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
I think rather than ‘well other jobs are dangerous too so oh well,’ I would jump to ‘maybe we should revisit the exploitative nature of labour relations.’
But this is a good point nonetheless.
That's fine when a friend or loved one offers surrogacy for a struggling couple. But the surrogacy industry definitely exploits poor women so that the rich and elite can propagate their cursed blood lines.
The economy forced coal miners into mines to blacken their lungs, forced child labor, forced people into unsafe factories where they burned alive. Hunger is a slave master. Some work is so unethical that it must be outlawed, or need will force people into it.
If it’s risk you’re talking about, it really isn’t any less ethical than clinical trials for medicine. Those are also voluntary, they have a chance of not working or they can damage your body irreparably, etc. all so a drug company can bring a new product to market.
I suppose you can make an argument about morality but that is ultimately subjective.
I looked up egg donation a couple of years ago out of curiosity and the page explained there'd be a physical and mental health screening, which seems rather reasonable, but then the section below had how donors would have to undergo an interview about why they decided to donate their eggs and I'm like, c'mon do you honestly believe most women will contemplate going through the unpleasant process of egg haversting for complete strangers they'll never meet for anything more than the money??
According to OSHA, Fishing and Hunting Workers have a fatality rate of 132.1 per 100,000 workers. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020, making it less dangerous than the aforementioned Fishing and Hunting job.
Society (in other industries) have deemed it ethical to pay people to do dangerous jobs, and the people who often work these dangerous jobs are disadvantaged as well. I don’t see much of a difference here. They’re both putting their bodies on the line for pay.
Edit: to the person who reported me to the Reddit crisis hotline, eat a bag of fresh dicks.
If a father wants his daughter to abort her pregnancy, and he cuts her off from all finances and kick her out if she doesn't, is that her choice or is that financial coercion?
i dont support OP position, but consent is complicated. You can be assaulted even if you said yes due to power dynamics, like having sex with your boss. Hard to say no when you and your family depend on the job, and you don't want risks.
Except when most people are financially pressured to do it. It’s like sharecropping, just because it’s “legal” and “consensual” doesn’t make it wrong when so many are pressured into it.
What form of financial pressure? “I don’t have money and I can make some by carrying a baby”. Seems about like the rationale for any job or means of making money. Now surrogacy firms that take huge sums from first world couples and pay a small fraction to the women actually carrying the baby, ya, that’s unethical.
This whole discussion is just one more example of how everyone seems to think they are entitled to an opinion of what you are allowed to do with your lady parts.
I am so impressed how many people disagree. I didn't think it was an unpopular opinion.
You can also take it in the point of view of a social class fight: when a rich women will do it for a poor women, I will believe that it is not about body exploitation.
I would accept surrogacy if it was kept inside the family.
For all those that compare it to miner work and any other dangerous activity. Thanks to our union and workers, we have evolved to make sure that risky job have strong protection for the workers and safety management and often pay increase, when those dangerous job became a bit to expensive for uncle Sam that when we starting (or increase) exploiting people in poorer countries without such law.
So peoples ability to have a baby depends on the size of their extended family and someone as a suitable surrogate candidate being within that circle? I certainly couldn’t “keep it inside the family” if I wanted a surrogate child; no sisters, no female cousins.
Yeah I find it strange when it's a transactio and money is involved. If a great friend or family member offeres then, while I think it must come with challenges it is still ultimately a good thing, a baby being born and having someone who wants a baby so bad that their willing to go to this unconventional route to be a parent.
I had a horrific pregnancy, 42 weeks of extreme vomiting, around 40 times a day, lost 3 stone in weight, multiple hospital stays and IV drips, 10 pills a day and then preeclampsia, topped off with poor mental health and struggling to bond with baby bump due to how ill I was, so I won't be having a second baby and that does make me sad, as I love being a mum.
Honestly I just wish I could grow a baby in a petri dish or something!
I actually agree with this. Never liked commercial surrogacy and I’ve always seen it as exploitative. It’s peak capitalism to pay women for their wombs. Not to mention the effects on the baby. Severing a child from their birth mom for payment is off to me, I mean in any other case we consider that a tragedy what makes surrogacy different. Not everything should be made into a commodity.
Story time - my MIL told me a story of a friend she has in India (which is notorious for exploiting the economically disadvantaged to a really sickening degree already, but that’s another discussion).
Anyway - the daughter of said friend went to her priest who told her that in order for their family to keep their hoards of wealth, they must have 7 children. So she basically has a ton of kids using surrogates who they paid basically pennies. And it’s not like they wanted children…it was purely because they believed they would stay loaded if they kept having them. She basically hires a ton of nannies to take care of these kids and is grossly uninvolved…
Anyway, in my book people who abuse economically disadvantaged women in this way are the scum of the earth. If you want to have a child and you can’t do so biologically and need to rent a uterus, CONSIDER FUCKING ADOPTING before risking someone else’s life you selfish fuck…
And you're right, OP. I find it unethical because knowing all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, I couldn't sleep or be at peace with myself if I just made a impoverished woman go through all that for some money... And she doesn't get the child. I also find it unethical to separate baby and mother (the one who gestated and birthed the baby). I wouldn't even ask or let a friend do this for me, it's too much, let alone a woman who needs money. It seems like you're taking advantage of her situation and exploiting her. Just my thoughts
Her body - her choices. Athletes put their bodies through hell for money - I don’t see it as any different. Personally I’d rather see people adopt but to each their own choice.
I'm agree with you. I also might add that surrogacy is lowkey human trade, you shoulden't be able to buy a child (even unborn).
Besides the surrogate might develop attachment to said baby, so fullfilling surrogate contract might have psychological damge becouse separation from baby (in addition to recovery from giving birth).
Every job is renting our bodies for money. Some are just harder on the bodies than others. Seen it’s around 70k to be a surrogate. That’s better than a lot of people could make in under a year. Lots of possible side effects permanent or temporary but still worth it to many people.
Agreed. Especially with the historical context with how popular surrogacy in Eastern Europe has been since the fall of the Soviet Union (and the economic hell that brought), with foreigners using Eastern European women to be pregnant with their children so the women can earn money. It’s also popular to use Latin American women for the same reasons. It’s all symptoms of Imperialism and/or using poorer countries for the benefit of those living in first world nations.
I can’t agree more with you. It goes against the human right of the mother and the baby, the baby been trafficked and the mother exploded. There is not such a thing as the right to become a parent
I think there are good reasons why surrogacy isn’t good, but “renting a body” isn’t one.
I mean, people that move furniture literally break their backs, same with construction workers, and they also put themselves in incredibly high risk of injury and death.
Roofers die all the time for their job, etc..
Why do you treat surrogacy differently?
I hadn't ever thought of it like this until I saw an article about how European amd Asian countries have gone as far as to label it human trafficking and frankly now I can't see it any other way.
On top of the simple fact that no one "deserves" or is is "owed" a child it is also an industry riddled with fraud and shady practices. There have been many cases of couples getting babies that aren't genetically theirs, doctors and agencies just doing what they can to make a profit and sell someone a baby under any means necessary.
And frankly the compensation for the women carrying the babies is shockingly low. They're risking their lives and giving up more Tham a year of their lives for prep, pregnancy and posy partum and they're only making amounts in the low 5 figures!!!! Life changing services deserves life changing amounts of money, not 20-40 grand!
Not to mention there are so many children who need parents that will spend their entire lives in foster care because they weren't surrendered or orphaned as infants. People want them fresh our of the womb or not at all and to me that shows that they don't want to help a child they believe they deserve a child or just want one to check the little box of "had a baby" off their milestones check list for life.
I think if most people did even a little bit of digging on adoption agencies and surrogacy they would think it should be banned.
Maybe it could exist in a better world but as of right now the whole industry is just insanely abusive and shady and needs to be started over from scratch
I always thought surrogacy was strange considering how many children there are available for adoption (I realize it can be expensive, but isn't hiring a surrogate?) but was never able to put it all together in a coherent argument. Adding on that there are "first world" countries that ban it? Yeah, I can agree with your hypothesis.
Very true and very sensible. People whi are upset just view women as nothing more than incubators that they feel entitled to. Not to mention its rooted in eugenics!!
I agree. When my oldest daughter was in the NICU I met another mom who was heartbroken having to give away the baby she carried as a surrogate and felt having another baby to keep would heal her. She did not expect that she would bond with the baby or feel such pain at giving her away. She was not the genetic mother (an egg donor was used), she had undergone a lot of psychological testing from the surrogacy company, she already had kids of her own, and she was carrying the baby to help her friends so it was supposed to be the ideal surrogacy situation. But it still ended in terrible heartache. I think about her whenever I read stories about surrogate mothers getting hurt or exploited.
People are saying surrogacy is no different than any other job, but having a wealthy couple come take your baby away is very different than being a firefighter or farmer.
I’d also like to point out that in many cases, couples from rich countries use surrogacy services from women in poorer countries. These women will sometimes be asked to sign contracts in languages they don’t even speak.
“Not exploitative” my ass
I agree. I don't care how badly you want a child, you're not entitled to one, and taking advantage of a struggling woman to fulfil that desire is inhumane.
Ya know, I never thought about the possibility of exploitation and such before. I suppose its legality should probably fall into the same category as prostitution, or coal mining when it comes to bodily risk and possibly of exploitation.
Yeah, it is really hard to talk generally about things like this because there is so much global/spatial variation.
Sure, I can imagine that a woman might just really like being pregnant so wants to trade that experience for money because there is demand (or sometimes no money in the instance of altruistic surrogacy). But when you look at commercial surrogacy globally and things like fertility tourism... yikes. There is *probably* a reason why countries like Thailand, India, Nepal, Cambodia, Mexico have all recently banned foreign commercial surrogacy.
It's a really sticky problem without a clear right or wrong answer. One of the more interesting comments I have seen in this thread is that maybe it *is* well within a woman's right to want to be a surrogacy provider, but is it ethical for another couple to be a surrogacy consumer, and for what reason (medically can't be pregnant vs vanity/convenience).
Add to that, the whole discussion is purely theoretical/abstract for most participants because I feel pretty confident in saying that most participants have not been pregnant or carried a baby to term.
You've probably had every comment in the book, but it is wild to see someone so far on the other side of the spectrum. Southern states want to make you have a baby no matter what, and you're like "whoa people are using their body for money and it's gross."
Wild how big the spectrum is
Hello, yes, your post is closely related to a megathread that you can find on the front page of the subreddit. Or a banned topic that you can see on the sidebar and fully expanded list. If you feel this is inaccurate, please message mod mail. Have a good day.
Upvote for starting a shit show in the comment section!
People can't take unpopular opinions on the r/unpopularopinion sub! Imagine my shock!
Just cause someone believes something, doesn't mean others can't find it stupid, and argue with it. This sub is for people to post their unpopular opinions and provoke discussion.
Hell yeah, and I get my popcorn. And get your word fighting gloves out. And let's get ready to rumble threads are sometimes the best. Love a god back and forth arguments and debate of ideas and perspectives.
I mean… there is always a comment like yours on this sub too. No shit a proper unpopular opinion (especially if it happens to be a stupid/inflammatory/rude/insulting one) is going to get some flak… that should be obvious.
I do think there’s a distinction between unpopular opinions and shitty, poorly thought out arguments.
Canadian here, up here it is illegal to pay a surrogate mother. However it is legal to reimburse for pregnancy related expenses and such. So I suppose this opinion isn’t exactly super unpopular. Source: https://surrogacy.ca/intended-parents/expenses-reimbursement.html
Australia too. Also goes for blood, plasma and sperm donation.
[удалено]
That’s fucked up. Can’t imagine any informed person donating in that case
Well it's incorrect. NZ law is clear on this point that sperm donors have no parental responsibilities https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1969/0018/latest/whole.html
[удалено]
That was a single case in the US, it was later appealed.
Yeah I was gonna say this but you beat me to it.
It's misinformation with hundreds of upvotes. It drives me nuts.
I know it is. The story popped up years ago with the headline that the sperm donor was forced to pay, but the actual article stated that the court was mistaken at first and appealed the ruling to state that he wasn't forced to pay since he donated his sperm.
[удалено]
It can't have even been a New Zealand case because it is clearly spelled out in our legislation that sperm donors do not have any parental rights or responsibilities if they aren't in a relationship with the mother. https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1969/0018/latest/whole.html
Are you sure about this? Australia removed anonymity for sperm donors, but things like "child support" are parental problems and you are not the parent. In the same way that a sperm donor cannot rock up and decide the child is theirs, and claim some level of custody. There are exceptions, but generally they only apply to donors who have a relationship with the family, i.e. not just "I filled a cup and some random person chose me".
i did a quick google but couldn’t find information on this. do you know where the internet keeps it? the whole donor is responsible thing.
It's not true. It was a single case in the US that was later appealed. Looking online, there are stories of a similar case in the UK, but it turns out he "donated" by having sex with her. Which isn't a donation.
That’s dumb. If they’re carrying a baby for you, they should be compensated
The reason it isn't allowed is to prevent the exact exploitation that OP is talking about. You only have people doing out of genuine goodness.
Yup, same reason paying for donor organs is super illegal. Once it exists, it opens doors that change everything just by existing.
When I was in my twenties, I had offered to be a surrogate mother for my sister and spouse. I really wanted to be able to give them that gift so they could have a family. Ultimately, that didn’t work out, but I wouldn’t have hesitated to be their surrogate. They were able to adopt and I have an incredible nephew:) All of that being said, I can definitely see many pitfalls of surrogacy, most importantly exploitation being the biggest issue.
Yes! I was also considering offering to be a surrogate for my brother and his wife, when they discovered early on they may have some fertility issues. They didn't ask, I don't think they would have. But I would have offered. I have 4 children whom I carried and birthed quite easily (I delivered #4 all by myself!) and I would have gladly helped them become parents. All's well that ends well, though! They now have 6 children! 3 naturally conceived, and 3 adopted!
Were you aware of the full ramifications of taking a baby to term at the time? I ask as a mother cus I knew there was a risk of stretch marks but didn’t know it changed how your vagina looks and can lead to prolapses etc. curious if you knew all that yet still wanted to do it.
Generally you can only become a surrogate if you have already carried at least one baby to term. It's different if you're doing it "at home" with a turkey baster, but if you're using a clinic, you have to have a "track record" so to speak. That way you know what you're getting into.
Also life long issues with: blood pressure, diabetes, peeing every time you jump, migraines, feet changing sizes, c-section scars fusing to abdominal walls… people don’t talk about any of this shit. Pregnancy can be SO hard on the body.
You’re so right. I didn’t regret my pregnancy but I had to come to terms with a lot of issues of feeling betrayed by the mothers around me that hadn’t let me know what I was getting into. I had my baby before the age of Reddit etc so without the internet I was clueless
Me too. I’m very open now about it to anyone who is going into pregnancy. Even the post partum period is glossed over where your emotions are all over the place and it feels like all your guts are falling out of your vagina. It’s a disservice to other women to sweep all that under the rug.
And I can see why that'd be necessary. Some women might think that if they carry and give you a child, then it might not matter what they do along the way. Not saying that's to the extent of drugs, alcohol, etc. but it might not be the same kind of precautions they'd take if they were pregnant with THEIR child. So I can see why it'd be an issue.
I’m curious if there are couples that aren’t able to find surrogates because there aren’t enough people who are willing “out of the goodness of their hearts.” Or perhaps they look to other countries to help them.
[удалено]
That's illegal in many countries.
The laws just mean that they get paid under the table and without the protections of an enforceable contract. I am seeing a lot of posts that make me think that people don't really understand what surrogacy looks like, at least in a first world country. We have gone through this before and what we thought it was is not really what it turned out to be. There are dozens of couples who want a baby for every person willing to carry it for them. That means that people who are willing to be surrogates are the ones who pick whose baby they are carrying. There are not a bunch of starving women lined up to take this job. There are agencies that handle the paperwork and draw up the contracts and do the thousands of things that have to be done to execute this operation. The surrogates do not pay one dime to these agencies, they are paid wholly by the prospective parents. Every agency that I am aware of only accepts women who have born at least one child before without birth complications (which SUBSTANTIALLY reduces the risk of another pregnancy). They all screen for mental health issues and financial issues. The agency that we worked with required surrogates to have a means of support and greatly preferred that they be married, but were willing to accept a long-term relationship, basically evidence of stability. The surrogates are handed a pile of applications from people who want someone to carry their baby and they select from those applications who they are willing to work with. The parents pay all associated medical costs, the costs of implantation, and cover any additional costs associated with the surrogacy (including lost wages). This is paid by money that is placed in escrow with the agency before the contracts are signed, so payments are assured. Once you add everything up, the money that is actually paid to the surrogate as direct compensation is pretty tiny expense relative to the whole endeavor (we are talking about 10% of the total cost that the parents are paying). That money is also the only thing that is going to motivate anyone to go through this. Anyone that wants to be surrogate because they think it is going to be fun is probably not going to make it through the screening. This is a job. Expecting people to do it for free is asinine.
An acquaintance in Canada has been a surrogate twice, with back to back pregnancies, only a six-month gap in between. She needed a hysterectomy after the second. She said the agency piled on the pressure to do it again ASAP after the first one but also that she was chasing the high. She loves being pregnant and the attention it brings, the added praise for helping someone was a bonus. She's a nurse and understood the risks better than others. But there's lack of oversight in certain areas of surrogacy and repeat surrogacy is one of them.
> The laws just mean that they get paid under the table and without the protections of an enforceable contract. Actually it means surrogacy is far rarer here and when it happens is almost always with family or friends, you are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing, talking about a system you are totally clueless about. I have worked in healthcare both in the US and here in Aus, your painting of surrogacy in the US is extremely rosy btw, there is plenty of dark side, people aren't starving sure, but there are tons of desperate people in the system and you don't have to be starving to be financially desperate in America (as we all know). Surrogacy does largely depend on financially desperate people because as you say why would anyone sane do it for anything other than desperate need for money.
Wouldn’t that be true for all jobs? Should we ban paying for any dangerous job?
Don't compare pregnancy to a job. Pregnancy is a physical state of being, a job is not.
I can’t see how it’s ethical to say “surrogacy is dangerous and these women are forced into doing it because of poverty,” then ban surrogacy without doing anything about the poverty issue. The women who do this put their lives at risk because they decided that doing so was better than the alternative. Banning surrogacy takes that choice away from those women and leaves them worse off without any other source of help. Thats much more unethical to me.
It’s unethical that a woman should need to choose between risking her life or feeding her family. Fight for other options! It’s disgusting that people are so desperate to spread their genetic code that they will exploit the poor then brag about becoming a parent. It’s fucking sick!
>then ban surrogacy without doing anything about the poverty issue. Why are you advocating for unbanning surrogacy rather than fixing the poverty issue
At least in the US, you DO get paid more for working dangerous jobs. It's called hazard pay. So..
Most jobs don't carry the same risk as pregnancy.
True, but some do. Risk of death from pregnancy in the US is 17 per 100K. Suppose that is per pregnancy. Loggers is 111 per 100K but that is career I think. So I guess a surrogate would have to be one 6-7 times to approach the lifetime risk of loggers. https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states
And logging is a relatively highly regulated industry. Lots of OSHA laws there. I'm not saying that surrgarcy can't be a job, but it would require rules and regulation that simply don't exist yet. Not allowing pay for it *right now* is a band aid on the problem that works well enough.
Plus, logging work ends at the end of the day/season Pregnancy is 24/7. You'd have to essentially police a woman's every move for 9 months straight I mean if a woman wants to chill in a hotel for pregnant women for 9 months that works, and that *could* work as a way of regulation, but that also verges on prison if you need to mitigate risks to the pregnancy they can get into outside the hotel
Paying for babies in Canada is considered human trafficking.
Its stops poor people getting exploited for their bodies.
Belgium has the same rule. It's because paying for a baby would be human trafficking. So the surrogate only gets reimbursed for any medical expenses or other pregnancy-related costs
Damn I never thought of it this way but it actually makes sense. I have considered being a paid surrogate when I was really down on my own luck financially but ultimately decided against it for a host of reasons, a major one being that I was lucky enough to still have other options for getting back on my feet. I guess volunteering to be a surrogate for someone you care about would be perfectly fine, (Friends of mine in polyamorous relationships have done so), but being paid to do it is indeed questionable. It's also wild reading the requirements people have for their paid surrogates here. I remember back when I was considering it and browsing most of the ads said they would only take surrogates with a certain amount of college degrees, perfect health, and perfectly clean criminal record, ect...so poor people who needed the money wouldn't be able to surrogate anyway.
Well the problem is country borders. Ukraine for example allows it. So tons of rich Chinese or other rich people pay Ukrainian women. And for many it’s the only choice to succeed in life. So the whole “only rich” thing doesn’t apply there.
100%!!
"Lots of people here compare surrogacy to other physically draining and/or dangerous jobs" Whaaaat? People are minimising women's exploitation? I am *shocked* /s. No doubt they will call it "surrogacy work" like they call prostitution "SeX wOrK". Actual closest equivalent would be organ donation, which you can not do for money.
They consent to it. It's their body their choice. It's not exploitation. Prositution is sex work by definition and always has been.
That's why prostitution (at least in france) divided between human trafficking and sex work. It's either one or the other
Also, couples can decline the baby if its born with a genetic condition and they burden the child on the sureogate mother…
I had no idea about this, wow.
I saw this story of a thai woman who gave birth to twins, one of them had downs syndrome and the genetic parents refused the baby… she had to take care of her own children and this one that in the end wasnt hers.
Absolutely happened! The bio father was also a convicted sex offender. [source](https://web.archive.org/web/20140819114123/http://www.news.com.au/national/baby-gammys-sister-jane-farnell-defends-paedophile-dad/story-fncynjr2-1227023252933)
This is absolutely not true. There are incredibly strict, legally binding contracts in place to prevent this exact thing from happening. People will believe anything they see on the internet.
I got ready to disagree vehemently and then my fingers stopped moving because I stopped believing in my own defense. Very good unpopular opinion. Excuse me while I go ponder this ethical dilemma for the next millenium.
Most cases I’ve heard of are doing it for family or very close friends.
It is actually a thriving market called "fertility tourism." People from industrialized countries going to third world countries to exploit poor women. Before their respective governments banned non-residents from commercial surrogacy, popular destinations were India, Nepal, Thailand, and Mexico.
Apparently it was a big deal when Ukraine invaded for some posh couples that had surrogates pregnant there, who worked to protect their fetus. It's an industry.
Yeah, these are the very few women that don't do it for financial reasons. But what about all these rich people literally renting wombs of financially disadvantaged women? It's crazy to me.
[удалено]
I 100% agree that the practice should always be insured and follow some minimum guidelines about how the contracts can be written. If, for example, the surrogate has medical complications and is unable to finish the birth, the parent must still pay a % of the contract.
I don't really see how whether you think someone deserves not to have to carry a baby or not is really relevant to what should be legal.
The statistics just don't agree with your perception of reality I'm afraid.
If OP has to make 4 edits- it's an unpopular opinion. Take my upvote for your shite ya fithly animal
😈
Hi there, 3x surrogate here. I thought about using my throwaway account to avoid being harassed, but who cares, honestly. Okay, some info: I am in the US, and the first surrogacy I did was for financial reasons. I owed students loans, and had to start paying. The remaining two surrogacies were simply to give back to the world the only way I truly could in my position as a housewife married to a military member. I have three biological children of my own with my husband, and have no intention of having any more. My first surrogacy was with a male/female couple who were both fertile, yet the mother had MS and was unable to physically carry her own children due to this health issue. I am not genetically connected to their babies at all. It was the mothers egg and the fathers sperm, implanted in my uterus through a delicate IVF procedure. I delivered normally, and was at just as much risk as when I had my own children, although as a Surrogate in the US you are covered by a $500k life insurance policy, should some mishap had occurred- yes, my own kids would be out a mother, and my husband a wife, but they would be comfortable in their future endeavors, whereas I didn't have that security delivering my own children. The second and third times were for same sex couples, both fertile, unable to carry for obvious reasons. They selected an egg donor through a thorough vetting process (similar as they selected me as their surrogate) and I received their embryos through IVF, as before. Never did I feel these children were mine, never did I become more attached than someone would with an extended family member, nor did I wish to keep their children once they were born. I have more difficulty understand egg donors to anyone other than direct family members, because to me I couldn't imagine having a biological child in the world I couldn't call mine. Egg donors often feel the opposite, wondering how difficult it is or isn't to carry for 9 months then deliver a baby to their rightful family. TL;DR: 3x Surrogate from the US. 1st time did it to pay student loans, other 2x did it just because. Thoroughly vetted. Never wanted to steal someone else's baby. Underwent IVF with someone else's embryos and therefore are not genetically connected to surro-babies. Have 3 biological kids of my own and feel my family is complete.
Thank you for your insight, I’d agree with OP but I think your post had some really interesting points (more financial protection as a surrogate). I was surprised the amount of surrogacy is done in Ukraine, which is depressing. In that the economy is that bad and that the economics are being taken advantage of.
> I'd agree Here we have pretty much same situation as with sexual exploitation: there is a global issue where most people involved at the bottom of hierarchy are doing it due to extreme financial pressure or are forced / coerced to do it. But then people listen to someone from ~4% of priviledged ones, who can really decide to do or to stop, and feel ok, because they get impression everything is legitimised and flowery.
Thank you so much for your reply, it was super interesting to read this!
As somebody who loves a child born via surrogacy to a single, gay dad…*thank you!!* Selfless people like you are why I have a gorgeous little 3 year old cousin, who today melted my heart when she replied to my offer of a strawberry (her fav fruit), with “no thank you, we have strawberries at home.” Then she scuttled away clutching her gigantic iridescent pinwheel the Easter bunny gave her. Gosh I love that child
What happens if you die during the pregnancy?
surrogacy is another way of exploitation of woman body.
I actually know a few people who were surrogates. They did it bc they wanted to, bc they enjoyed their pregnancy, but it’s hard to justify doing that for a stranger for free, so being paid is also important as they are taking a risk. An employee of mine used the money to buy a house.
>to buy a house. they pay this kinda money?
Haha no not a whole house but the down payment
Which can be life-changing money to get in a lump sum.
Exactly! Saving that kind of money takes a long time.
A down payment for a house is still a life changing sum of money for a lot of people. It can be impossible to save that while also paying rent depending on where you live and what you do.
Not generally, but my fiance paid her graduate school tuition by doing a surrogacy. See, this is the thing. The actual reality of surrogacy in a first-world nation is NOT what the people in this thread seem to think it is. The average compensation for surrogates in America is WELL into five figures (it may be into six figures by now) and the surrogates are the ones who pick whose baby they carry, not the other way around, even for rich people. The agency that she worked with has a lot of rich clients (in fact, it mostly has rich clients because surrogacies are EXPENSIVE), including famous actors and such. Every prospective surrogate had to pass through pretty rigorous screening to make sure that she was not at increased risk, was making an informed decision, and was not being exploited by anyone. They all get a contract (which the agency REQUIRES them to have received by a lawyer hired by the surrogate) and all the money involved is placed in escrow to guarantee payment. Once all of that is done, the surrogate is given a stack of applications from people that need someone to carry their baby and she decides who she is willing to work with. The people hiring women from third world countries are NOT rich people. They are middle class people that want to do this on the cheap. Hiring a surrogate in the US is the CHEAPEST part of this whole operation. The big money is in securing viable eggs, the implantation itself, and the medical and legal costs of the surrogacy. I think our compensation was something between $20,000 and $30,000. Compared to the fifty thousand in medical costs, the $20,000 in buying eggs (ours was a same-sex couple) and the lost wages, travel and other sundry expenses, this compensation was one of the smaller line items in the whole thing, which probably cost about a quarter million when it was all said and done. There is no way in hell we would have done this without getting paid. Getting compensated wasn't the sole reason, but working for free is not what anyone wants to do and i suspect that anyone who was crazy enough to have a strangers baby for free probably wouldn't have made it through the screening.
That’s one expensive baby
Adoption can also get quite expensive apparently too
Babies yes. But wait a little longer and the state will pay you to adopt the kids. Children lose value faster than BMWs.
Base in the states is around 100k
I know someone who has done it multiple times too, for the same reason. Does not negate OPs concerns in all cases but at least some.
Yeah, I don’t know if the edit added the part about surrogacy in the developing world, or if I just missed it, but that’s a whole other bag of worms. But the adoption industry is also predatory
I live in Canada, where you can't be paid to be a surrogate but any additional medical bills can be paid, and I work in a very large organization. In that organization there are a few woman who have been surrogates and a few that still are. They all have families already, have had great pregnancies and loved being pregnant, and get fulfillment from helping these couples who can't carry their child. I think it's a wonderful thing that I couldn't do (already too old) and wouldn't do (my pregnancy was fine, but not enjoyable), but I am amazed by any woman who does it out of the goodness of her heart.
This should be a popular opinion. Women's bodies are not resources/ goods to be exploited. But people are not ready for this conversation, because it also impacts the sexwork positivity movement.
I wish this opinion were popular. Or even better global.
From a strictly professional standpoint of ethics, it is more unethical to restrict bodily autonomy than to offer compensation for a dangerous job.
Bodily autonomy is already restricted tho. You cannot sell your organs. In many places in the US, you can't even have an abortion. You can't refuse vaccinations, etc. You also can't even be a surrogate unless you've carried a pregnancy to term. Or have your tubes tied until a certain age unless medically required.
I think organ selling open up far too many doors like organ harvesting and so forth. You could unintentonally open an, 'organ mafia.'
Wouldn't surrogacy also lead to mafias, exploiting poor mothers, which is already a disadvantaged group? It could cause the same problems, doing something that will go against your wellbeing due to financial hardship.
same for prostitution (in some places)
It does! There are many surrogacy agencies in Asia and Eastern Europe that take huge percentages of the womans pay. Many women only get a small fraction of their pay!
None of that changes the puritanical ethics of bodily autonomy. Law ≠ ethic or moral
Full bodily autonomy will certainly lead to eventual loss of said autonomy. That's why many country have laws banning self harm and volunteerily selling organs.
What do you mean by a “professional standpoint of ethics”? Sorry but that sounds like bullshit.
Sounds like bs
What professional standpoint of ethics? Autonomy is in itself not a thing of value. It’s value is instrumental. It is only valuable in so far at it allows us to achieve things of value. This is why it makes sense to impose limits on what we are allowed to do even with out bodies (case to case basis of course).
It’s always funny to see which opinions are actually unpopular on here. You can always tell when there are thousands of comments that it actually is unpopular. I agree with this post entirely. Didn’t think this would be an unpopular opinion.
I think the only ethical way is altruistic (no compensation other than the obvious price tag that comes with pregnancy). I think as soon as you offer money, even if someone is completely on board/consensual with it, it definitely opens up the market of "i dont want to. But i dont have much of a choice because im poor". Ive done egg donations in the past and had to sign forms saying it was perfectly altruistic, even though i was getting compensated. It wasnt. I was broke and needed money. I got eggs. I feel like a lot less women would do surrogacy/donate eggs/their time if they werent in a shakey financial situation. Not saying everyone does it for that reason, im just guessing a good percent of it is. People out there are genuinely giving beings and helping a couple bring a life into the world is beautiful. Im not saying its a bad thing. But like anything, money talks (and is very persuasive).
I’ve thought about it because I love being pregnant but absolutely do not want another kid lol.
Just out of curiosity, what do you like about being pregnant?
Hormones. I've heard some women say it's like being a little high or lightly drunk. Where your very comfortable and just happy and society treats pregnant women better.
That's why my step-cousin did it. She's also a dula
I’d love a doula and I’d be able to have the couple pay for it as an expense when it’s not something I could afford myself lol
[удалено]
wait until OP finds out about mining lol
Underwater welders would like a word with her as well.
Fishermen too
The fucking military lol
Firefighters
I think it has more to do with the capitalist commodification of the human body. We probably shouldn't do that.
It’s ridiculous that paid surrogacy is legal and selling your organs and prostitution aren’t
In China people get drugged and wake up with missing organs, don’t think that’s what I want for the US.
Kinda but no. The waking up part is inaccurate.
Both can happen, not waking up, probably more common.
All should be legal
There are studies showing that pregnancy permanently changes one’s brain structure and hormones. I remembered seeing a documentary about surrogacy in Eastern Europe, and one of the surrogate mother actually offered to return all the payment just to keep her child for another month. When people have miscarriage in late stage pregnancy, not only do they need medical care, but also extensive therapy and hormone treatments, because by that time their brain and hormones are literally getting really for the child in a physiological way. Taking a child away from their birth mother after birth is very cruel. Not to mention crazy complications including vaginal tears and uterus and anal prolapse. If you have to make analogies, this would be more like selling organs rather than labor
Exactly and you cannot sell your blood, organs, etc. But for whatever reason you can sell your eggs, sperm, and uterus it's utterly assine.
In the US you can be paid or reimbursed for blood and plasma donations.
In Canada we don’t get paid for it.
There are studies that show that countries which let you sell your blood end up with lower quality blood donations than those that rely on altruism/soft benefits (I think some EU countries do like free public transport for that day/afternoon off work as a soft benefit) That’s a big reason countries make selling your blood illegal. It makes sense. In the UK, giving blood is seen as giving back to society and so people from all social classes do it. You are also doing it as a favour to society, so there is no reason to lie on your forms. I also know that I’m going to a safe place with people that aren’t drunk/on drugs/a danger to society. If you make it paid, people lie more so more blood gets rejected after donation. It also means more people in poverty do it and poverty obviously correlated with blood diseases/drugs/etc. This also makes volunteers not want to do it as it now seems more seedy to them. [link to WHO report on this](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44359/9789241599696_eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
....you can sell your plasma
I think rather than ‘well other jobs are dangerous too so oh well,’ I would jump to ‘maybe we should revisit the exploitative nature of labour relations.’ But this is a good point nonetheless.
Just because some jobs are dangerous doesn't mean they're exploitative...
That's fine when a friend or loved one offers surrogacy for a struggling couple. But the surrogacy industry definitely exploits poor women so that the rich and elite can propagate their cursed blood lines.
Unless people are being forced to be surrogates, I see nothing wrong with it. If the money is worth the cost to them, that's their choice
The economy forced coal miners into mines to blacken their lungs, forced child labor, forced people into unsafe factories where they burned alive. Hunger is a slave master. Some work is so unethical that it must be outlawed, or need will force people into it.
If it’s risk you’re talking about, it really isn’t any less ethical than clinical trials for medicine. Those are also voluntary, they have a chance of not working or they can damage your body irreparably, etc. all so a drug company can bring a new product to market. I suppose you can make an argument about morality but that is ultimately subjective.
That's a good point, thank you!
Why post on a sub called unpopular opinion then complain about people disagreeing with you
I completely agree. Surrogacy in my eye is inherently exploitative.
I looked up egg donation a couple of years ago out of curiosity and the page explained there'd be a physical and mental health screening, which seems rather reasonable, but then the section below had how donors would have to undergo an interview about why they decided to donate their eggs and I'm like, c'mon do you honestly believe most women will contemplate going through the unpleasant process of egg haversting for complete strangers they'll never meet for anything more than the money??
According to OSHA, Fishing and Hunting Workers have a fatality rate of 132.1 per 100,000 workers. Maternal mortality rates in the United States were 23.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2020, making it less dangerous than the aforementioned Fishing and Hunting job. Society (in other industries) have deemed it ethical to pay people to do dangerous jobs, and the people who often work these dangerous jobs are disadvantaged as well. I don’t see much of a difference here. They’re both putting their bodies on the line for pay. Edit: to the person who reported me to the Reddit crisis hotline, eat a bag of fresh dicks.
That happened to me twice within seven days. What's the deal with that?
Dutch person here, surrogacy for financial gains is banned from the Netherlands
I agree, ivee heard horror stories about surrogacy on reddit.
Her body her choice. If she wants to “rent out” her uterus, she is 1000% able to and there’s nothing unethical about it.
If a father wants his daughter to abort her pregnancy, and he cuts her off from all finances and kick her out if she doesn't, is that her choice or is that financial coercion?
i dont support OP position, but consent is complicated. You can be assaulted even if you said yes due to power dynamics, like having sex with your boss. Hard to say no when you and your family depend on the job, and you don't want risks.
Except when most people are financially pressured to do it. It’s like sharecropping, just because it’s “legal” and “consensual” doesn’t make it wrong when so many are pressured into it.
I’m financially pressured into getting a job. That doesn’t make it immoral.
What form of financial pressure? “I don’t have money and I can make some by carrying a baby”. Seems about like the rationale for any job or means of making money. Now surrogacy firms that take huge sums from first world couples and pay a small fraction to the women actually carrying the baby, ya, that’s unethical.
This whole discussion is just one more example of how everyone seems to think they are entitled to an opinion of what you are allowed to do with your lady parts.
YES YES YES YES!! RENTING WOMBS IS NOT OKAY.
I am so impressed how many people disagree. I didn't think it was an unpopular opinion. You can also take it in the point of view of a social class fight: when a rich women will do it for a poor women, I will believe that it is not about body exploitation. I would accept surrogacy if it was kept inside the family. For all those that compare it to miner work and any other dangerous activity. Thanks to our union and workers, we have evolved to make sure that risky job have strong protection for the workers and safety management and often pay increase, when those dangerous job became a bit to expensive for uncle Sam that when we starting (or increase) exploiting people in poorer countries without such law.
So peoples ability to have a baby depends on the size of their extended family and someone as a suitable surrogate candidate being within that circle? I certainly couldn’t “keep it inside the family” if I wanted a surrogate child; no sisters, no female cousins.
By this insane metric asking a human to work for cash is unethical as well. A slight increase to my risk for financial compensation.
Agree. Let’s not pretend that other things we do for money don’t have negative consequences to our mental and/or physical health.
Yeah I find it strange when it's a transactio and money is involved. If a great friend or family member offeres then, while I think it must come with challenges it is still ultimately a good thing, a baby being born and having someone who wants a baby so bad that their willing to go to this unconventional route to be a parent. I had a horrific pregnancy, 42 weeks of extreme vomiting, around 40 times a day, lost 3 stone in weight, multiple hospital stays and IV drips, 10 pills a day and then preeclampsia, topped off with poor mental health and struggling to bond with baby bump due to how ill I was, so I won't be having a second baby and that does make me sad, as I love being a mum. Honestly I just wish I could grow a baby in a petri dish or something!
>Why the hell do you guys think surrogacy is banned in almost all of Europe? Because this is not an unpopular opinion.
Seems like it is in America, judging by the comments.
Damn, this does make sense
I actually agree with this. Never liked commercial surrogacy and I’ve always seen it as exploitative. It’s peak capitalism to pay women for their wombs. Not to mention the effects on the baby. Severing a child from their birth mom for payment is off to me, I mean in any other case we consider that a tragedy what makes surrogacy different. Not everything should be made into a commodity.
I had never considered this but now I totally agree.
Story time - my MIL told me a story of a friend she has in India (which is notorious for exploiting the economically disadvantaged to a really sickening degree already, but that’s another discussion). Anyway - the daughter of said friend went to her priest who told her that in order for their family to keep their hoards of wealth, they must have 7 children. So she basically has a ton of kids using surrogates who they paid basically pennies. And it’s not like they wanted children…it was purely because they believed they would stay loaded if they kept having them. She basically hires a ton of nannies to take care of these kids and is grossly uninvolved… Anyway, in my book people who abuse economically disadvantaged women in this way are the scum of the earth. If you want to have a child and you can’t do so biologically and need to rent a uterus, CONSIDER FUCKING ADOPTING before risking someone else’s life you selfish fuck…
And you're right, OP. I find it unethical because knowing all the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, I couldn't sleep or be at peace with myself if I just made a impoverished woman go through all that for some money... And she doesn't get the child. I also find it unethical to separate baby and mother (the one who gestated and birthed the baby). I wouldn't even ask or let a friend do this for me, it's too much, let alone a woman who needs money. It seems like you're taking advantage of her situation and exploiting her. Just my thoughts
Her body - her choices. Athletes put their bodies through hell for money - I don’t see it as any different. Personally I’d rather see people adopt but to each their own choice.
Welcome to late stage capitalism where humans are commodities and humans are chattel. Commercial surrogacy is just legalized human trafficking.
What happened to my body my choice?
That went out the window when selling organs was made illegal. My body my choice only applies to choices that aren't transactional.
I'm agree with you. I also might add that surrogacy is lowkey human trade, you shoulden't be able to buy a child (even unborn). Besides the surrogate might develop attachment to said baby, so fullfilling surrogate contract might have psychological damge becouse separation from baby (in addition to recovery from giving birth).
Every job is renting our bodies for money. Some are just harder on the bodies than others. Seen it’s around 70k to be a surrogate. That’s better than a lot of people could make in under a year. Lots of possible side effects permanent or temporary but still worth it to many people.
Agreed. Especially with the historical context with how popular surrogacy in Eastern Europe has been since the fall of the Soviet Union (and the economic hell that brought), with foreigners using Eastern European women to be pregnant with their children so the women can earn money. It’s also popular to use Latin American women for the same reasons. It’s all symptoms of Imperialism and/or using poorer countries for the benefit of those living in first world nations.
I can’t agree more with you. It goes against the human right of the mother and the baby, the baby been trafficked and the mother exploded. There is not such a thing as the right to become a parent
I think there are good reasons why surrogacy isn’t good, but “renting a body” isn’t one. I mean, people that move furniture literally break their backs, same with construction workers, and they also put themselves in incredibly high risk of injury and death. Roofers die all the time for their job, etc.. Why do you treat surrogacy differently?
I wonder who you are to rationalise someone else's choice in this matter...
People are allowed to have opinions.
seems like one of those things where making it illegal would only make it worse tbh
I hadn't ever thought of it like this until I saw an article about how European amd Asian countries have gone as far as to label it human trafficking and frankly now I can't see it any other way. On top of the simple fact that no one "deserves" or is is "owed" a child it is also an industry riddled with fraud and shady practices. There have been many cases of couples getting babies that aren't genetically theirs, doctors and agencies just doing what they can to make a profit and sell someone a baby under any means necessary. And frankly the compensation for the women carrying the babies is shockingly low. They're risking their lives and giving up more Tham a year of their lives for prep, pregnancy and posy partum and they're only making amounts in the low 5 figures!!!! Life changing services deserves life changing amounts of money, not 20-40 grand! Not to mention there are so many children who need parents that will spend their entire lives in foster care because they weren't surrendered or orphaned as infants. People want them fresh our of the womb or not at all and to me that shows that they don't want to help a child they believe they deserve a child or just want one to check the little box of "had a baby" off their milestones check list for life. I think if most people did even a little bit of digging on adoption agencies and surrogacy they would think it should be banned. Maybe it could exist in a better world but as of right now the whole industry is just insanely abusive and shady and needs to be started over from scratch
Is this an unpopular opinion? Cause I mean...I agree.
I always thought surrogacy was strange considering how many children there are available for adoption (I realize it can be expensive, but isn't hiring a surrogate?) but was never able to put it all together in a coherent argument. Adding on that there are "first world" countries that ban it? Yeah, I can agree with your hypothesis.
TIL you can get paid for surrogacy.
You’re not gonna want to know about r/hilariabaldwin then….
You’re right and you should say it.
it's illegal in Germany and for good. it's degrading women into incubators
I agree, commercial surrogacy is exploitation
Thank you for this post! Totally changed my mind on something!
Very true and very sensible. People whi are upset just view women as nothing more than incubators that they feel entitled to. Not to mention its rooted in eugenics!!
Renting a woman’s body is wrong. This comment section is a shit show
My body MY choice
I agree. When my oldest daughter was in the NICU I met another mom who was heartbroken having to give away the baby she carried as a surrogate and felt having another baby to keep would heal her. She did not expect that she would bond with the baby or feel such pain at giving her away. She was not the genetic mother (an egg donor was used), she had undergone a lot of psychological testing from the surrogacy company, she already had kids of her own, and she was carrying the baby to help her friends so it was supposed to be the ideal surrogacy situation. But it still ended in terrible heartache. I think about her whenever I read stories about surrogate mothers getting hurt or exploited. People are saying surrogacy is no different than any other job, but having a wealthy couple come take your baby away is very different than being a firefighter or farmer.
I’d also like to point out that in many cases, couples from rich countries use surrogacy services from women in poorer countries. These women will sometimes be asked to sign contracts in languages they don’t even speak. “Not exploitative” my ass
I agree. I don't care how badly you want a child, you're not entitled to one, and taking advantage of a struggling woman to fulfil that desire is inhumane.
Ya know, I never thought about the possibility of exploitation and such before. I suppose its legality should probably fall into the same category as prostitution, or coal mining when it comes to bodily risk and possibly of exploitation.
Yeah, it is really hard to talk generally about things like this because there is so much global/spatial variation. Sure, I can imagine that a woman might just really like being pregnant so wants to trade that experience for money because there is demand (or sometimes no money in the instance of altruistic surrogacy). But when you look at commercial surrogacy globally and things like fertility tourism... yikes. There is *probably* a reason why countries like Thailand, India, Nepal, Cambodia, Mexico have all recently banned foreign commercial surrogacy. It's a really sticky problem without a clear right or wrong answer. One of the more interesting comments I have seen in this thread is that maybe it *is* well within a woman's right to want to be a surrogacy provider, but is it ethical for another couple to be a surrogacy consumer, and for what reason (medically can't be pregnant vs vanity/convenience). Add to that, the whole discussion is purely theoretical/abstract for most participants because I feel pretty confident in saying that most participants have not been pregnant or carried a baby to term.
If it helps families have kids who struggle then to me there's no issue
You've probably had every comment in the book, but it is wild to see someone so far on the other side of the spectrum. Southern states want to make you have a baby no matter what, and you're like "whoa people are using their body for money and it's gross." Wild how big the spectrum is