Italy makes surrogacy an universal crime

[Argentbear]

Here an Italian gay couple who have a child together.
Actually... they went to Canada and asked a Canadian woman to be the surrogate mother.
Either man is the biological father.

I don't understand why they couldn't renounce parenthood.
You can't have it all in life.

Good for them. That kid is lucky to have two great dads

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It was already a crime in Italy, now it forbids people from doing it abroad too :
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-makes-it-illegal-seek-surrogacy-abroad-2024-10-16/

In the country the practice is also despised and nicknamed as "uterus for rent" to highlight how certain women are disposed to rent their own motherhood , as if babies were things to sell.

I applaud this decision. I mean... I think that couples that cannot have children should grow up and become adults.
You become an adult when you understand that sacrifice and renounce give you wisdom and strength.
So...if God didn't give you any children, you must respect His will. And move on.

Thoughts?
Be as merciless as possible.

Yeah, and if God didn't give you legs, you shouldn't thwart His divine will by using a wheelchair or other device. Just crawl on your belly as God intended!

Gotta love that God wisdom, eh?

 

[Kathryn]

I don't care what consenting adults decide to do together. I may not choose that option but I have enough to do keeping my own self straight. LOL

 

[Argentbear]

Maybe you didn't get the law.
They can do the practice abroad...but if they return with the product (the baby) they will be prosecuted.

control manipulation and exploitation of the reproductive choices and the sex lives others. Obviously Italy doesn't care about children of families just conformity.

 

[Argentbear]

I don't understand why they couldn't renounce parenthood.

Why should they?

 

[HonestJoe]

And still the grass is always greener on the other side...so they envy heterosexuals so much that they want to have a baby through deviated processes.

I can't help feeling that you're revealing how this is less about surrogacy and more about homosexuals.

And this is not something adults do. You become an adult when you stop throwing a tantrum and when you renounce something.

You mean like criminalising surrogacy just because they "renounce" homosexuality?

Of course, homosexuals (or infertile couples) aren't "throwing a tantrum" or "renouncing" anything. They're just living their lives. The fact you personally disagree with the way they live their lives isn't a good reason to change the law.

 

[Estro Felino]

Of course, homosexuals (or infertile couples) aren't "throwing a tantrum" or "renouncing" anything. They're just living their lives. The fact you personally disagree with the way they live their lives isn't a good reason to change the law.

I am not forbidding homosexual couples anything.
They can have orgies, swinging...anything.
Children are a third party involved. So when a third party is involved, the State has to bring limits.

 

[Estro Felino]

Good for them. That kid is lucky to have two great dads

I agree.
But this law is dissuasive towards future practices.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Be as merciless as possible.

No.

So...if God didn't give you any children, you must respect His will. And move on.

I find this brutally ironic and hysterically funny and brazenly hypocritical coming from someone who's underwent gender reassignment.
And who cares? Your god is impotent to those who don't believe, worth no more than Zeus or Krishna in considering how to live one's life, and indeed proper freedom allows one to live free of religious dogma.

In the country the practice is also despised and nicknamed as "uterus for rent" to highlight how certain women are disposed to rent their own motherhood , as if babies were things to sell.

I applaud this decision. I mean... I think that couples that cannot have children should grow up and become adults.

All I see is uppity moral judgements. Uterus for rent? Many women are surrogates out of the kindness of their hearts.

Well...the sister can also sleep with the brother-in-law... I mean... swinging is so fashionable these days.

Disgusting.

This law intends to undo a horrific marketplace where babies are commodified.
A human being is juridically a person whose existence has no price.

The law is an affront to reproductive freedom.

 

[Estro Felino]

No.

I find this brutally ironic and hysterically funny and brazenly hypocritical coming from someone who's underwent gender reassignment.

Indeed. If God had wanted me to have children, He would have given me a uterus.
Since I am into men...I guess having children with men in my situation would be impossible.

And who cares? Your god is impotent to those who don't believe, worth no more than Zeus or Krishna in considering how to live one's life, and indeed proper freedom allows one to live free of religious dogma.

I understand. It's something not provable. So juridically, He doesn't exist.

All I see is uppity moral judgements. Uterus for rent? Many women are surrogates out of the kindness of their hearts.

I know. I provided with an example of a woman from Canada who did that for free.
Which is much more unacceptable.
That is...you give away your own motherhood... thinking you are donating something to others.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Indeed. If God had wanted me to have children, He would have given me a uterus.
Since I am into men...I guess having children with men in my situation would be impossible.

That ignores the point.
It's ok for you to take interventions to thwart and override "God's plan" but say others shouldn't be allowed to also go beyond what nature gave them.
Amd where do you draw the line? Some claim it's organ transplants and blood transfusions. What about antibiotics?
I'll say it again, you, someone who underwent medical interventions because you didn't like or want what god birthed you with, are being brutally ironic, brazenly hypocritical and hysterically funny to say another must be just deal with it and accept their birth (or not) conditions.

I understand. It's something not provable. So juridically, He doesn't exist.

Amd yet the Vatican holds sway over Italian politics. And really they should shut the hell up. They want to criticize surrogacy and call for a universal ban? They need to quit being objectively terrible and bad people who protect and defend child rapists.

Which is much more unacceptable.

More disgusting judgements.

That is...you give away your own motherhood... thinking you are donating something to others.

Yes, she is donating her time, her body, giving all that pregnancy demands because she loves other people enough to suffer through and give them something they can't naturally have.
How ****ing terrible.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I am not forbidding homosexual couples anything.
They can have orgies, swinging...anything.
Children are a third party involved. So when a third party is involved, the State has to bring limits.

I get it. It's very Italian and very Catholic (natural law theory, you know). It's part of the culture and religion. D&G was saying the same stuff years ago:

Dolce & Gabbana Break The Internet Coming Out Against Gay Parenthood, Elton John Cries Vendetta

Italian billionaire designers Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana gave a controversial interview in which they spoke against gay families and surrogate mothers, sparking the ire of Elton John who called for a boycott of their brand.

www.forbes.com

 

[HonestJoe]

I am not forbidding homosexual couples anything.

Yes you are, you're forbidding them from using surrogacy (or, a least, you're actively supporting the government policy).

They can have orgies, swinging...anything.

If that's where your mind goes when you think "homosexual", I'd respectfully suggest that's your problem? I very much doubt they're any more (or less) likely to do that, but either way, I how would that have the slightest relevance to surrogacy specifically?

Children are a third party involved. So when a third party is involved, the State has to bring limits.

Sure, but you claim not to object to same-sex couples adopting. I'm certainly not saying that procedures like surrogacy don't need regulation and limits for the good of everyone involved. You've still failed to establish any definitive reason for criminalising it entirely though.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes you are, you're forbidding them from using surrogacy (or, a least, you're actively supporting the government policy).

Yes, I actively support this policy.
Especially after an Italian singer and his husband had two babies through surrogacy.
Now after their births, they divorced.
Why did they make these children...if they were so inclined to divorce?
Poor children.

If that's where your mind goes when you think "homosexual", I'd respectfully suggest that's your problem? I very much doubt they're any more (or less) likely to do that, but either way, I how would that have the slightest relevance to surrogacy specifically?

I also condemn this practice if the couple is heterosexual.
Let's say I am married to a man.
So I am supposed to accept that my husband procreates a baby with a surrogate mother?

There's no doubt I will hate this woman's guts for life. Because she shared something with my husband...even if it was artificial insemination.
I find this horrendous.

Sure, but you claim not to object to same-sex couples adopting. I'm certainly not saying that procedures like surrogacy don't need regulation and limits for the good of everyone involved. You've still failed to establish any definitive reason for criminalising it entirely though.

I think that adoption from gay couples will be much more likely to happen in my country.
But never surrogacy.

There's a chasm between the two, legally speaking.
A child that needs to be adopted already exists and seeks for a family.
A child that is supposed to be created through surrogacy doesn't exist yet.
And the State cannot accept that the mother has the right to give away her own child without the supervision of the State.
A mother doesn't have the right to arrange her child's life.

 

[Augustus]

good luck enforcing that outside of Italy....

Some laws are enforced in citizens even outside of the country’s borders, for example travelling abroad to abuse children, or certain forms of corruption.

Returning with a child should be much easier to enforce.

 

[Wu Wei]

Some laws are enforced in citizens even outside of the country’s borders, for example travelling abroad to abuse children, or certain forms of corruption.

Returning with a child should be much easier to enforce.

and those things are generally illegal in most countries.... but you said "Returning with a child" again, they would be enforcing it inside Italy, not enforcing it in another country...

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, I actively support this policy.
Especially after an Italian singer and his husband had two babies through surrogacy.
Now after their births, they divorced.
Why did they make these children...if they were so inclined to divorce?
Poor children.

What does that have to do with surrogacy? Their situation could be exactly the same if they'd had their own biological children. All sorts of things can cause difficulties in a marriage and children (be that having them or not) can obviously be a common factor.

I also condemn this practice if the couple is heterosexual.

Yet I'm not convinced it would be as strongly condemned if it somehow only involved mixed-sex couples. Again, you might not be personally targeting homosexuals (at least not consciously), but there remains a strong argument that is a unspoken motive for your government.

So I am supposed to accept that my husband procreates a baby with a surrogate mother?

You wouldn't be "supposed" to do anything. Surrogacy is an option but obviously both partners would need to want and sign up to it. If it isn't something you'd personally want to do (even if you were unable to have children otherwise), nobody would force you to even consider it. It should go without saying, but the fact you personally wouldn't want to do something is not a valid reason for it to be criminalised though.

And the State cannot accept that the mother has the right to give away her own child without the supervision of the State.
A mother doesn't have the right to arrange her child's life.

Clearly the state could accept that, even if you wouldn't want them to. They wouldn't have to though, and could easily require regulatory supervision or even run the process exclusively via a state organisation. Yet again, you've still failed to give a reason for surrogacy to the entirely criminalised.

And clearly mothers (and parents more broadly) do have a wide scope of rights (and responsibilities) to arrange a child's life. After all, a pregnant woman is even permitted to choose to put her child up for adoption.

 

[Isabella Lecour]

I'm glad. Human trafficking needs to be stopped. No child should be ripped away from its mother because it was sold to someone else. That trauma is inflicted thoughtlessly and ought to be stopped.

 

[The Hammer]

I'm glad. Human trafficking needs to be stopped. No child should be ripped away from its mother because it was sold to someone else. That trauma is inflicted thoughtlessly and ought to be stopped.

Huh? Is this related to surrogacy?

 

[Alien826]

I would like to know what pushes people who want to become parents at all costs to have children with their same DNA as them.

Evolution, over millions of years. It's actually the genes that want to ensure their reproduction, but they influence the people.