I talked to my boss when I first got hired about being pregnant and doing my job. It was a very physical job with long hours and could be quite dirty, but many women did it pregnant. He agreed with me that pregnancy was no hindurance to the job. For over a year I talked about becoming pregnant and he assured me it was okay. On the day I was supposed to fly out to meet the parents, he informed me that he would let me go if I went. I had my shift covered, everything was in line. I was dumb founded when he said that if I thought he was going to let me work there pregnant I was wrong. All that time he had been fine with it. So I prodded, trying to find out what changed his mind. His wife even did the same job while she was pregnant with their son! His response was "but she didn't sell the baby." He wouldn't let me explain, talk to him, or show him why he was wrong. He just told me to leave. I loved working there until that day and no amount of money could have brought me back after that. Selling my baby?? So far from the truth!
Based leftist boss fighting against human trafficking?? :so-true:
I mean, I gotta admit, like if someone's boss found out they were involved in selling children off to Little St. James and fired them, and I doubt anyone would fault them for it. And based on the thread we had the other day, it seems like a lot of this site believes that surrogacy is "literally buying babies" or equivalent to Murray Rothbard's "free market for infants" - or at least, a bunch of you think that's a reasonable position to have. So I'm curious if any of the 50 or so people who upbeared that thread see any problem with that boss's decision to fire his pregant worker for, as you would agree, "selling her baby." I'm curious to know if you'd make the same decision in his shoes, and if you see any problem with that situation - other than of course, that he couldn't hand her over to the cops as well.
I guess I'm just trying to better understand your positions. Like, is this something that you actually believe, or is it a superficial, exaggerated rhetorical flourish that you know is bullshit but use anyway because it provides a pretext for infringing on women's rights? You know, like "abortion is murder?"
I also wouldn't mind hearing from some centrists and moderates on the issue. Those who think both sides have a point, between, "Surrogate mothers are engaging in human trafficking by returning a child to their biological parent," and, "Surrogate mothers have a right to bodily autonomy." Is there one side that you think is more reasonable, or are you a true centrist, right in the middle of those two, equally extreme positions?
While I'm at it, I'd also like to open up the discussion more broadly. Is there anything else women's bodies do that you think is immoral, or maybe just plain gross? Anything else you think ought to be illegal? I'm really looking to hear from some men here, because I feel like we never get their perspective on that.
Anti-surrogacy is just anti-choice for anti-natalists.
-
Rich people having "their own children" via surrogacy is a pretty fucked relationship when you consider patriarchal and capitalist context.
-
Being in a situation where you're commoditizing your body in such an intimate way is usually going to be pretty fraught when it's a transactional relationship.
-
People have been carrying kids for other people one way or another for millennia, that seems fine as an equitable social practice.
Therefore it seems like a good synthesis would be significant protections for the person acting as the carrier.
To me, the question is whether there’s actual evidence that surrogate mothers need or want more legal protections. If those are the people that we’re trying to protect, then doesn’t it behoove us to listen to what they’re actually saying? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that people who have actually gone through the process know more about it that people who haven’t?
(copied from another comment)
We're all terminally online internet socialists, most of us are not trying to do anything related to this. Now it seems in your post that you really don't like people equating surrogacy with selling a child or some other such nonsense. I don't agree with that notion either, it's just not that that's happening.
But in terms of what people that are surrogate mothers think about it in general, is there somewhere in your post where you...have that? I mean, it would make sense to have protections that are based on the needs and experiences of surrogates but that doesn't mean the need is something that we should see as debatable. I think most posters here are sex worker positive but know that under capitalism it's terribly rife for abuse and harm. I see this as analogous. For example, shouldn't the mother in your example have legal protections for being able to work while pregnant? Shouldn't she have further protections that bind the people using her labor to being responsible in some way for what happens?
I think I'm kind of bothered by the notion of the question. Does someone really have to be capable of imagining and articulating their deserved rights to have or deserve them?
But in terms of what people that are surrogate mothers think about it in general, is there somewhere in your post where you…have that?
Well, I linked to an AMA. In the other thread, I posted this study. It was the only link to any kind of actual data about surrogate mothers in the entire thread, and it was met with mockery and derision. I have been trying my best to read about and find information from people with direct experience, while not a single person on here who is anti-surrogacy has posted a single shred of evidence that anyone who has been involved in it wants it banned or more heavily regulated. It's purely their own assumptions, speculation, and vibes.
I think I’m kind of bothered by the notion of the question. Does someone really have to be capable of imagining and articulating their deserved rights to have or deserve them?
I'm kind of bothered by the notion that a bunch of online leftists with zero exposure to the actual practice and zero interest in learning about it think they know better and want to just barge in telling people, "No, you're oppressing yourself, you're too dumb to realize that you shouldn't be doing this, I know better than you what you actually need." It's an incredibly chauvinistic attitude.
Historically, socialists have had all sorts of ideas about how society ought to operate. But the successful projects have been successful because they actually listened to the needs and wants of the people. Look at how Mao won over the farmers. Look at how Lenin promised "Peace, land, and bread" - none of which were novel concepts the Russian peasants had to be told to want. Look at how the EZLN pursued a more diplomatic path because it was what the people they're representing wanted them to do. Look at how the Black Panthers operated a free breakfast program.
Step one of any leftist project should be to find out the actual material needs of the community in the present situation, and work from that. Not to just assume that you know better about what they need because you're better educated or whatever.
I’m kind of bothered by the notion that a bunch of online leftists with zero exposure to the actual practice and zero interest in learning about it think they know better and want to just barge in telling people, “No, you’re oppressing yourself, you’re too dumb to realize that you shouldn’t be doing this, I know better than you what you actually need.” It’s an incredibly chauvinistic attitude.
Is that what you think I'm arguing though? You linked a study about their psychological well-being, but I at least am not really arguing about that. I'm not even arguing that surrogacy shouldn't exist. I'm arguing that capitalism is a fuck and it seems like you don't want to really engage with the material contradictions of surrogacy under capitalism on the grounds that "surrogates are actually fine with this particular form of inequality." Like...ok, maybe many are? I'm personally not trying to engage on the terms of a metanarrative of what other hexbear.net users are thinking about surrogacy. There are positives and negatives to a mass line as the only form of guidance on social progress. On the one hand, obviously Mao won over the farmers by hearing their issues and helping the farmers synthesize them. But on the other, that also requires the vanguardists to politically educate the farmers, which did happen. And still, we see social contradictions in these societies that are patriarchal in nature, like the lack of explicit rights and protections for LGBTQ+ people in China. So I don't think you can look at some imagined notion of a mass line when looking at something as relatively complex to our society as surrogacy. In other words, it's not really chauvinistic to identify the dynamics that lead to surrogacy being accomplished problematically, inherently, under capitalism, while recognizing that in general, it's very human as a practice. To reiterate, no one here is barging in anywhere, we're arguing online on a niche communist internet forum.
I’m arguing that capitalism is a fuck and it seems like you don’t want to really engage with the material contradictions of surrogacy under capitalism on the grounds that “surrogates are actually fine with this particular form of inequality.”
I'm perfectly willing to engage with it. Give me the facts. Show me the stats. Show me evidence that the actual material conditions line up with your thus far entirely hypothetical and theoretical ideas about what might possibly be happening on the ground. Otherwise, no, I'm not willing to engage with "the material contradictions of surrogacy under capitalism" on the grounds that you haven't presented the material contradictions, only the hypothetical contradictions which may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with the actual, material reality.
And if you don't have sources for the material reality you believe exists - why not? Is it perhaps because you haven't looked into it, because you haven't thought too much about it before? Perfectly understandable! But if that's the case, then maybe start by reserving judgement, not jumping to any conclusions about how it must function, and instead try collecting data and learning about the situation, and only then thinking about how it might be improved. And hey, you know where you could learn about how it works? Maybe from the people actually involved in it.
I reiterate that placing your own preconceived, purely theoretical notions about what other people's lives are like above their own testimony regarding the same is incredibly chauvinistic, and if you don't agree with that then no, I will not discuss this any further because I disagree you with you on a very fundamental level.
do you not understand that rich people renting poorer peoples bodies is inherently an unequal thing under capitalism? all i really have to say on the issue is my original comment, which is just this one point ultimately. i'm not involved with surrogacy, i'm not antisurrogacy. i'm not really trying to have a debate about why you're the final authority on surrogacy. is this personal for you or something? do you have personal experience with the process of surrogacy in america? because from my perspective, and i'm otherwise disengaging on your post because i really just wanted to offer the most obvious reason people here would be concerned about the manner in which surrogacy would be practiced in america, you are unwilling to understand this singular and obvious point. are you telling me you need hard data to understand that workers need protections from the people employing me? that you need a study to tell you that black kids in areas the panthers operated needed food, that the peasants in china needed to overthrow their landlords? you can't argue from this position of data on the one hand and an appeal to a notion of a mass line on the other if you're not going to back up that example with like, idk, some study that proves that the kids that the black panthers were feeding were hungry or some shit. i don't need a study to tell me that. your notion that people here are actually meaningfully against surrogacy is just much more theoretical than the notion that rich people that don't want to adopt and are willing to pay for surrogacy could take advantage of the surrogate. because it's an inherently unequal social relationship. because of the patriarchy and chauvinism that is inherent to our society.
-
To me, the question is whether there's actual evidence that surrogate mothers need or want more legal protections. If those are the people that we're trying to protect, then doesn't it behoove us to listen to what they're actually saying? Isn't it reasonable to assume that people who have actually gone through the process know more about it that people who haven't?
I think that's reasonable. But yeah generally I think that the approach of like, "This is exploitative so we need to ban it" is a bad approach, because it's not focused on looking at why people are in a potentially vulnerable position to start with, but instead on taking away options from vulnerable people just because we think an option is... icky? Uncouth? Generally, letting people have options is better than taking them away, unless there's a good reason, like, the option is a trap and most people who choose it wish they hadn't, or, it's not actually voluntary and it's availability means people will be forced into it (as can happen with sex work). When we look at the actual material reality, neither of those is the case in this situation. Taking some precautions to ensure it doesn't become predatory is one thing, but outright banning it, not because it's actually predatory or harming anyone, but because you personally don't like the vibe of it, or you have some purely idealist speculation about how it could theoretically become predatory, is a completely absurd proposition.
What zero materialism does to mfers.
Relying purely on vibes and intuition while being immersed in a patriarchal culture is naturally going to lead people to take a heavier hand than necessary when dealing with women doing things outside of the norm. I'm just disappointed to see this BS on the communist bear site.
Your comment made me curious what pregnancy and childbirth care costs in Cuba, and jfc are my Google search results about Cuba unhinged
It seems like it's free and good, as referenced by this study, but I don't have the patience to sift through more smear articles than I just did. The smears I skimmed didn't claim that it's expensive though, they just tried to make Cuba's pregnancy care centers sound like concentration camps
Any person who comments on this blatant struggle session attempt is a filthy drama piggy, myself included.
i just wanted to argue that maybe this should involve free healthcare and paying for womb space seems kinda weird when humans have been doing that as part of the social fabric for eternity without financial compensation in the form of currency, but yeah, i guess i am just a filthy drama piggy after all :deeper-sadness:
I don't have a strong opinion but that's the most convoluted strawman I ever saw.
I'd love to hear what part of the reasoning these people disagree with.
Yeah, which part?
-
It's perfectly reasonable to fire someone because they spend their free time buying and/or selling children.
-
Surrogacy is the buying and selling of children
-
Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to fire someone for choosing to become a surrogate mother.
Seems like a pretty logical conclusion to draw, provided you agree with 2, which is what they claim.
I don't think surrogacy is selling children.
Surrogacy to me is yet another example of thing that, if it's transactional, can become fucked up real quick given the current system. People should be able to do it if they want, but it becomes fucked up when somebody is forced by conditions to do it.
I guess being pregnant and giving birth is like a big psychological deal for the person doing it, so that's why I don't vibe with rich reptiles paying desperate people to ¿host? (idk what's the correct term) their embryos. Sure, those same reptiles will pay to other desperate people to raise their born children, etc.
I just don't want to cheerlead a new kind of exploitation. Sure, exploitation is everywhere, etc.
Similar to prostitution, not legalizing, and so not regulating, transactional surrogacies can lead to "precarization" of the situation for the people forced to do it. Even worse if complete ban.
Idk
I don’t think surrogacy is selling children.
Then you're not someone who the story about the boss was directed at. There were people on here going around saying that and getting upvoted and it is a completly absurd, infuriatingly incorrect description of the situation. I presented the example that I did in order to crush that line into the dirt and to bully the people saying that shit into understanding that it's completely unacceptable. It's not really a strawman if people are literally saying that exact thing, it's just a criticism of a more extreme position than what you personally believe.
People should be able to do it if they want, but it becomes fucked up when somebody is forced by conditions to do it.
The question I have is, are people actually being forced into it? I have seen some stories regarding people in developing countries being taken advantage of, and that has caused me to back off in that specific context. But I have still not seen any evidence that surrogate mothers in the west are being forced into or taken advantage of. I'm of the mind-set that if I'm going to tell someone that they shouldn't be allowed to do something that they want to do, then I should have something that I can point at, and that something should be real, material evidence and not just speculation and hypotheticals, which is what the majority of people on here are basing their takes on.
I have seen some stories regarding people in developing countries being taken advantage of,
Same, but I live in such country. The thing about those situations is that not only a US dollar is worth a lot more in peripheral countries, but also the people from the imperial core become shielded against any kind of legal demand from the surrogate mother cuz :us-foreign-policy:.
But you are not shielded against possible exploitation either. If surrogacy is fully legalized and regulated (to the favor of rich people of course) in the imperial core, instead of going thru the hassle of travelling to the third world, rich people will be able to exploit desperate people at home.
Again, the whole thing seems exactly the same as prostitution discourse.
In which case, again, I'm inclined to base my opinions on how the people actually involved feel about it and what they think should be done - something which hardly anyone on this site seems remotely interested in doing. Just takes, takes, and more takes.
-
I'd compare it to sex work discourse rather than abortion. You've got the "x is inherently unethical because power dynamics under capitalism and patriarchy" and the "women have bodily autonomy despite what you consider morally objectionable" arguments. Same shit.
I agree, and just like with sex work discourse, nobody gives a shit what the people actually involved think should happen.
Well part of the struggle is that "people involved" is a pretty damn big category. The sex worker who gets into selling nudes for extra spending money, someone who just likes sex selling their body for some fun with selective clientele, a drug addict who is exploited by a lack of proper healthcare, persecution, and being abused by a pimp and a trafficked woman in a third world country kidnapped off the street are going to have insanely different perspectives on sex work and the morals behind it.
In the same way, surrogacy is drastically different between an otherwise well off woman just making some extra spending cash and a poor homeless third world woman trying not to starve.
Anti-surrogacy is just anti-choice for anti-natalists.
I don't think this is accurate. Most people in the left have no problems with surrogacy, the issue only occurs when you introduce profit to it.
Critique about surrogacy is more about how women's wombs should not be for sale. Because what ends up happening is rich and high status people taking advantage of poor people, usually from much poorer countries, even going on "procreation vacations" and forcing them to have their child.
Not sure what an ancient Reddit post has to do with it. Its nothing to do with anti natalism.
Also as a bi man I really, really hate how surrogacy is seen as progressive and intertwined into LGBTQIA rights. It is not homophobic to say that we don't have the right to rent someone else's womb.
Because what ends up happening is rich and high status people taking advantage of poor people, usually from much poorer countries, even going on “procreation vacations” and forcing them to have their child.
Do you have resources where I can find out more about this?
Happens all the time in Ukraine, because of the way the laws are written (the surrogate mother does not appear on the birth certificate). The world's largest surrogacy clinics operate there and most "customers" are wealthier foreigners.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/15/the-stranded-babies-of-kyiv-and-the-women-who-give-birth-for-money
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60824936
https://www.financeuncovered.org/stories/surrogacy-law-reform-law-commission-cafcass-low-cost-surrogates-new-life-baby-broker
Thanks a lot for providing that information.
Some of the stories from Ukraine are heartwrenching, but being a warzone complicates things, it's a little hard to separate the harm caused by the practice compared to the more general tragedy. But I found the investigation in the third source more compelling. It definitely tracks with the sort of fly-by-night, sweatshop practices done by other multinationals in other fields.
I think there's a valid case to be made regarding international surrogacy restrictions, especially in the context of overexploited countries, because in that context it's a lot easier for scum to get away with a lot more. But I'm not convinced regarding domestic surrogacy, in the imperial core. In that context, what I've seen has given me a completely different picture (this study, for example). The impression I've gotten is that most surrogate mothers in the US do so because it's something they want to do, often as a form of altruism, and it can be helpful and lifechanging for couples that can't have kids, for whatever reason.
I tend to base my beliefs on actual consequences, and the line of "wombs should not be for sale," strikes me as, I mean, who gets to decide which body parts a woman is allowed to use to make a living, and on what basis is that decision made, if not material consequences? I'm not going to tell someone they're not allowed to host someone else's baby unless I can actually point to something and say, "See, this is the thing I'm trying to avoid, this is the reason behind this restriction." While you've made the case for that in certain contexts, I don't agree with your position universally.
Ok but like 70% of that Hexbear thread is just people complaining about living a society where it approaches being meaningful to ask what the price tag on the most intimate aspects of our lives are. Even the minority who explicitly are advocating a commercial ban are pretty clearly (a) premising their position on the fact that meaningful consent is impossible in a system of capitalist exploitation, and (b) clearly not advocating for punishing the victims of that exploitation as an enforcement mechanism. Support for non-commercial surrogacy seems to be unanimous if you're wondering what people's thoughts are on surrogacy in principle.
Like I get that we all love to be little chaos demons here from time to time but surely we owe each other better faith discussion than this
I felt that I needed to put to death the line of "It's literally buying babies" because that line is a ridiculous, thought terminating cliche that frustrates any attempt at a good faith discussion of the issue. I came out swinging and while I admit I've been harsher on some people in here than was warranted, I don't really regret slamming that specific line into the dirt, considering plenty of people upvoted it and nobody really pushed back on it. Yeah some people in that thread weren't being unreasonable, but in that case if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
This is probably flying close to the sun with the snark but I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was put off by that thread
I tried politely asking for sources and data, you know, regret rates for surrogate mothers and stuff like that. The only response I got was OP yelling at me that "iT's LiTeRaLlY bUyInG cHiLdReN," and when I looked into the material reality of it and found that very few surrogate mothers regret their decision or suffer any kind of long term consequences, and then posted that source, OP just continued yelling at me that "iT's LiTeRaLlY bUyInG cHiLdReN," and that's when I realized that nobody fucking cares about any of that nerd shit like actually listening to the people they claim to be protecting and it's all about slogans and framing and rhetoric and that's why the snark in this post is turned up to 11.
The anti-surrogacy critique for the sake of power differentials between surrogate and client(?) is very similar imo to the critique of polyamory/relationships-with-large-age-gaps/intra-org relationships I see here occasionally, again also for the sake of the potential power differentials between participants. They’re not wrong in those specific - but also all too common - circumstances, but they’re also not the whole truth of the situation and can be taken as blanket criticism of the practice which they shouldn’t be. And if you are trying to blanket write off really any practice that comes down to an issue of bodily autonomy fuck off you tosser. Go do some self-crit and come back
Like you could make the exact same arguments about blood donations but I don’t see anyone rushing to end the practice. Hopefully just to make it more equitable if anything
Like you could make the exact same arguments about blood donations
Yeah I'm a Jehovah's Witness (Hexbear branch), why do you ask?
Like you could make the exact same arguments about blood donations
speaking to some yankee friends, fuck i wish i could get paid to donate blood like they do
that could get me enough cash to not have to pick between power and food lol and i make that shit for freeMy parents are 12 years apart in age and doing fine 30 years later. I’m not saying there aren’t creeps, just that this site has the nuance of a particularly mouthy high schooler
Ok? Thanks for your addition. How does 25 and 37 sound? Please let me know your opinion without any context or knowledge of the individuals involved at all. It makes it more pure as a ““Marxist”” endeavor ya know?
I have a whole thing written out but in my heart you’re a smol bean leftist and the important thing to learn here is that the critique needs to more keenly focus in on the mechanism of oppression rather than the social marker around that node of oppression because, tho they can be highly correlated, they are not 1:1. I mean shit this critique is completely devoid of materialism
Like, how do older men exploit younger women? It isn’t just because they have grey in their beards. There’s an entire material infrastructure they contribute to and take advantage of. Two relationships that look the same on paper can act completely differently
I would simply not turn something like this into a bit for posting.
This is the most palatable way I could find to express how pissed I am about this.
