This is W-H-Y, I'm, totally, AGAINST SURROGACY, because morally, it's the government's way of, OBJECTIFYING women a steps farther, allowing us to RENT out that "space" (our UTERUSES) for money, and that's, just, WRONG!!! Off of the Front Page Sections, translated…
The Department of Sanitation & Health Welfare proposed the drafts of artificial births, legalizing surrogacy, and stated clearly, "surrogacy should be interpreted as a behavior that helps others, instead of a tool for business to make money off of." In the drafts, the surrogate is not the mother, because the law prohibits using of the surrogate's ovum, denied that she is the legal mother of the newborn child, with NO right to regret the decision of carrying another's child; she's not a laborer either, without any payment, only allowed to charge the needed fees of hospital checks, the needed nutrients, transportation to the hospital checks, the needed consulting fees with the medical professionals, and paid for the loss of her own work. And yet, she "needs to be a mother", with behaviors limited by the restrictions of child and adolescent welfare laws, nonsmoker, nondrinker; and had to work endlessly, overtime, with the needed experiences of being pregnant, and going through, labor.
In this benefitting others work, the surrogate woman is the main character, she needed to offer help to others without anything in return, and, wouldn't this also fit to the requirements of the various parts in this, for instance, the medical, the consultation, the agency, the workers in these organizations too? If it is unreasonable to ask all of these, medical professionals to offer their professionalism without pay, then, why is this demanded on the women who become, surrogates?
The discussions of surrogacy, the surrogate are often protected by the country's own laws for the ability to give birth, and a basic human right for all women. And, longing for one's own young, but couldn't, this would be regrettable, but, is there the guarantee of a woman's, demanding that the country protects her right to ask someone else to use her uterus, to fulfill the desires of having one's own offspring, like the demands of right to receive an education, asked of the country? The answer is, negative. The C.E.D.A.W. by U.N. in 1979, and the Cairo Conference in 1994 both agreed on that the government should protect women's birthing rights, to allow the birthing process to be safe, health, and autonomous, but this did NOT include surrogacy. Then, can the individual hire someone to carry? Looking at the global community, the places that didn't ban commercial surrogacy other than California and New York which costs very much, all the other places are all, located in the third world locations where there's not enough health benefits, lower incomes, with high unemployment, rates. The international agents used the globalization to keep the costs down, to exploit the services of obedient women in these poverty-stricken areas of the world, turning surrogacy into a multi-billion U.S. dollar production chain. There were the legal disputes of surrogacy that's surfaced, (including abandonments of deformed children), post 2015, there'd been laws set up in the concentrated areas of surrogacy in India, Thailand, Nepal, with the laws prohibiting the transnational surrogacies and the business of surrogacy, but there were the new countries joining the list.
the matter of what's morally responsible, if we can, rent the "storage space" of our bodies out...from online
Surrogacy involves the coming-into-being of a new life, and the ethics of families, the process is elongating, and complicated, most of the countries with the constitutional rights know to ban, like in Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Japan. And there are a handful of countries, even with the laws allowing, have the strict restrictions of "benefitting others" in the surrogacy means, like Great Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, and Canada.
All of these countries had set up the restrictions, to prevent surrogacy from becoming a business, respecting the surrogate mothers' and their families benefits, that the women are the birthmothers of these children, mothers of the children legally, with the right to not give up the infants, to ensure that the parental rights are given up under free will. If this country truly care and respect the surrogates, and implied the principle of "benefitting others", then there should be the following changes to the drafts of allowing surrogacy by the Department of Sanitation & Health Welfares:
First: respecting that the surrogate's status as the birthmother, protecting the right of her body, giving the individual the right to go back on the contract of surrogacy, and clarifies that unless absolutely necessary, no caesarian sections.
Second, to prevent surrogacy from becoming a production line, the facility of services during the term of the surrogacy should be independent, to not get any payments, and no advertisements.
Third, the artificial birth consultation should be tested by the society, and with the surrogate mothers as committee members in these facilities.
So, this is still the debate of whether or not we are moral in allowing women to RENT our uteruses out for money, and morally, we shouldn't, but, people want to have babies, and they couldn't here, and, there's the need to increase the births of infants, as the population is aging too quickly, but these proposals of surrogacy, does NOT protect the surrogates at all, and so that need to be, more complete, before there's any more further discussion on this.
I personally, believe, that the government should NOT be consenting women to PIMP out their uteruses (b/c that is, what this is!), because we need more babies being born into this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment