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.
:jesse-wtf:
-
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.
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.
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
I don’t have a strong opinion but that’s the most convoluted strawman I ever saw.
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.
