The French Got It Right on Surrogacy
from Yahoo News:
France’s top court refused Wednesday to allow French citizenship for 10-year-old twin girls born to a surrogate mother in the United States, in a ruling that affirmed France’s legal ban on surrogacy.In a case straddling international legal rights and bioethics, the Court of Cassation ruled a California county went too far by ruling that a French couple are legally the twins’ parents.
“Surrogacy is also banned outright in most European countries, including Germany, Spain, Finland, Italy, and Switzerland. But the French have articulated the reasons for this rejection most eloquently”:
from Red State Feminists:
It is a fundamental principle of French law that the human body is inviolable, and no part of it can be treated like property. In its decision, the Conseil d’État reasoned that since altruistic surrogates usually receive some form of stipend, and since the nature of the relationship between the intended parents and the birth mother is necessarily contractual, then, in essence, surrogacy is a transaction, which treats the child like an object and the surrogate mother’s body like a commodity. This is a concern echoed by other French critics, such as philosopher Sylviane Agacinski, who view the practice as degrading, by definition. “To solely use [a woman's] belly is contrary to dignity,” she told the left-leaning website Rue89, “even if no money changes hands, because it places the very existence of one human being at the service of another.
Loading ...
Wow, great quotes. So succinct and reasonable.
Yeah, very succinct and reasonable. Do they also prohibit use of donor gametes, I wonder?
—-!!!!!—-
And everyone – I’m embarrassed to admit that I only recently discovered the wonders of the RSS feed for comments for this blog. (the link is below “Subscribe to comments feed”) I had been laboriously scrolling through the front page, trying to remember how many comments each post had, and clicking on each post that I thought had new comments. Now I just check my RSS reader (I used a Firefox plug-in called Brief but I think there are many others) that automatically tells me when there are new comments and I don’t miss any, even on old threads! I can read every comment easily and click over to the thread if I want to comment. I think I warped my brain and wasted gigabytes of web traffic (sorry) doing it the old way. Does everyone else already do it this way? I can’t believe I was in the dark for so long.
@Betsy If only the U.S. would follow their lead here!
@John Howard
Congratulations, John Howard!
I do use the RSS feed, but I miss comments because I am not able to check it very frequently.
Is it below the “Subscribe to comments feed” button? Or is that the button to access the RSS feed? (I’ve never figured out how to use RSS myself – for anything. It sounds like a much better way to check threads than “the old way”.)
I think surrogacy is a marvelous gift from one human to another…kind of like organ donation.
@Sean Surrogacy is abuse of the human body for use as a baby factory. There is no similarity to organ donation.
That’s silly, Glenn. Helping a couple have a baby that they can’t otherwise have is an enormous gift. It’s like adopting someone else’s children. It’s very selfless. It’s one more way in which humans can help each other and care for each other.
Now there is a good way of putting it, Glenn. I was going to say something about how organs don’t go wondering who their father or mother is, but I think your point is even more accessible.
And here I go, saying that organ donation is itself unsustainable and undignified. Every day we have with our own functioning bodies is a gift, and that is more than we can ask for. We can’t demand someone else’s organs to keep living forever, think of the babies who never even got to be born before you start demanding someone else’s organs right when they die. There is nothing wrong with Heaven, and don’t worry about the people you’ll leave behind, everyone else will take care of them.
@Sean
How can it be a gift if they order it and pay for it? And how is it even a good thing when people have baby? Is there a shortage of babies? Is not having a baby harmful to anyone’s health? It’s actually a good thing when couples don’t have babies, they don’t have to worry about festering away a college fund or buying diapers and ballet lessons, driving to soccer, driving to the mall, etc. No Vera, Chuck, or Dave on your knee, but thousands of Veras, Chucks, and Daves on knees, don’t worry. Not everyone has to experience everything. Trust the Tibetans to see the Himalayas, the French to see the Eiffel Tower, Etc. Trust the painters to paint, the clubbers to club, the builders to build, and the parents to parent. We don’t all get to do everything.
“How can it be a gift if they order it and pay for it?”
Who says a gift doesn’t come with expenses? The concept of helping a couple bear a child is extraordinary, like the doctor who cures your cancer. That doesn’t mean he does it for free, for goodness sake!
“Is there a shortage of babies?”
There is if you’re a couple who wants a baby and can’t have one.
“We don’t all get to do everything.”
We also don’t get to dictate to others how to live their lives, though I’m sure you won’t stop trying.
Why can’t couples who can’t conceive by themselves adopt? There are so many babies who need to be adopted.
@Sean A gift is just that – totally free. That’s a definition, but since you don’t like dictionary definition for marriage, I can see you redefining “gift”
We don’t get to dictate how others live their lives? We do it with every law on the books!
@Sean
What Betsy and Glenn said.
“Why can’t couples who can’t conceive by themselves adopt? There are so many babies who need to be adopted.”
Why can’t they create a baby with their own DNA, with some help? Why don’t straight people take care of their babies, so they don’t have to be adopted?
“We don’t get to dictate how others live their lives? We do it with every law on the books!”
We have laws that serve a public purpose, which is not to satisfy the needs of religionists. Ever. Telling someone they can’t smoke in a public place isn’t exactly the same as telling someone they can’t marry the person they are committed to, because the religionists don’t like it.
So what happened to thou shalt not murder, or thou shalt not steal? Or how about thou shalt not bearing false witness?
Oh such pandering to religionists. Those people deserve the second hand smoke of those that are of the non-religious ruling class.
“So what happened to thou shalt not murder, or thou shalt not steal? Or how about thou shalt not bearing false witness?”
Not committing murder or stealing satisfies everyone, not just the religionists. And you can bear false witness all you want, except under oath in court. People lie to their own spouses for god’s sake!
All other rules and regulations from the bible, including Ten Commandment prohibitions, are perfectly legal.
@Sean Telling someone who they can or cannot marry isn’t in the sole purview of the “religionists” – as noted many times – ignored every time by you – the vast majority of people (contrary to biased polling) are against SSM. And they are also against incest, polygamy, etc. It is a public need to ensure marriage is that which is supportive of society and not detrimental to it, which SSM certainly is.
Exactly. So while religionists are against neutering marriage, so are secularists.
The bast majority of people favor equal rights for gay people. And since when does a straight majority get to give itself a right and deny that right to a gay minority?
Same-sex marriage is very important to society: too many children are being raised outside of the security of wedlock already, to force still more to do so.
The right to marry is subject to 1) the core meaning of the type of relationship, 2) the societal response to that core meaning, 3) the limits on eligilbity that are drawn around that core meaning and that are thus justified by societal regard for that core meaning.
The SSM idea is bereft of a core meaning, is an outright rejection of the core meaning of marriage, and lacks justification for limitations on eligibility.
SSM argumentation produces the result that SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship. It also denies that there is a sexual basis for the legal presumption that both spouses are the parents of their offspring — or of children in their keeping. The SSM idea does not entail the default that the two adults of the same sex have given prior to consent to co-equal parental status — since SSM and children are seperate matters according to SSM argumentation.
Meanwhile surrogacy stands against procreative justice — that which is owed the child. It also is contra to respect for the human dignity of all involved, including the “surrogate”, the consumer of the service (i.e. the adults who seek to attain a child via this method), the technicians who facilitate the practice, and citizens of society whose consent is sought in general.
The SSM idea is a big shrug when it comes to all of that. Nothing intrinsic to the one-sexed sexualized scenario can provide justification for surrogacy nor justification for standing against surrogacy. Once again, SSMers will tend toward a retreat to the hiding place known as moral neutrality.
@Sean You still keep bringing in the idea of children for SSM. The majority of homophiles are not interested in having children!
Yes, the majority of people, including me, want equal rights for homophiles. But marriage is not something homophiles are qualified for unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.
Yes they do, and for the vast majority that equality for gays are programs like CU’s, DP’s, and RB’s. A vast majority do not support neutering marriage, because marriage’s reference to a man and a woman references something intrinsic and deep in our society, how children are created. It references it in attempt to promote responsibility in procreation.
I join the vast majority to support marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and child they potentially have together.
Nothing about that denies any equal right to a homosexual.
“Yes they do, and for the vast majority that [sic] equality for gays are programs like CU’s, DP’s, and RB’s.”
That’s false. Normal people don’t want gay and lesbian citizens subjected to “programs” but rather treated as equal citizens. Among Americans who support legalized relationships for gay and lesbian Americans, most support marriage, not “separate but equal” water fountain arrangements.
“A vast majority do not support neutering marriage…”
Too late! It was neutered in the last century. There are no more gender roles or references in civil marriage. Women are no longer subject to their husband’s wishes or desires, against their own. Hip, hip, hooray!
“how children are created”
Children are created by the combining an egg and sperm, not by marriage. An no, babies don’t come from a stork!
“I join the vast majority to support marriage equality — the equal recognition of the rights and responsibilities of the man, woman and child they potentially have together.”
Far from a majority, it may be only you who holds this view of what marriage is.
“Nothing about that denies any equal right to a homosexual.”
Nothing about legal same-sex marriage stops you from holding and practicing your peculiar view of what marriage is.
“The right to marry is subject to 1) the core meaning of the type of relationship, 2) the societal response to that core meaning, 3) the limits on eligilbity that are drawn around that core meaning and that are thus justified by societal regard for that core meaning.”
The problem with that, Chairm, is that the core meaning can’t be construed in such a way as to violate the constitutional rights of anyone. We could certainly try to make the core meaning of voting (and once did) as “the process by which men elect public officials.” That becomes problematic when speaking of the rights of women.
“The SSM idea is bereft of a core meaning”
Maybe the whole notion of a “core meaning” is bereft of meaning! The same-sex marriage idea lives peacefully alongside the OSM idea in some states, and several foreign countries. These jurisdictions appear to have encountered no difficulty with core meanings.
“SSM argumentation produces the result that SSM, at law, would not be a sexual type of relationship.”
I strongly suspect that most gay couples who want to marry are having sex! But true, marriage is no longer a sexual type of relationship, as no couple is required to have sex to get, or stay, married.
“Meanwhile surrogacy stands against procreative justice…”
Or perhaps “procreative justice” is actually huddling in the corner with “core meaning,” shivering and frightened.
“Once again, SSMers will tend toward a retreat to the hiding place known as moral neutrality.”
There’s nothing hidden about the notion of moral neutrality. Once homophobes release their inhibitions, and accept that human sexual feelings are morally neutral, progress can be made. The most effective means for this to happen, is for the homophobe to become personally friendly with a gay or lesbian person. Once personal contact is made, it becomes far more difficult to for the homophobe to dehumanize the gay or lesbian person.
“You still keep bringing in the idea of children for SSM. The majority of homophiles are not interested in having children!”
I’m not sure what a homophile is (someone who loves sameness?) but many homosexuals are currently raising children, often outside of wedlock. That’s bad for kids, who would be much better off if their parents could get married, and create more secure relationships.
“But marriage is not something homophiles are qualified for unless they marry someone of the opposite sex.”
Well, there’s no particular reason to let heterophiles marry, but not homophiles. Can you think of a good reason for such a discriminatory distinction? Neither can I.
“Women are far more likely to be abused in a lesbian relationship than in one with a man.”
Uh, ok. How does this relate to the topic at hand?
“Once again Sean sets up gays at the expense of others”
There is no cost, or expense, to non-gay persons, when gay people are granted the same rights straight people have.
“Right, for gays and lesbians they come from vending machines called infertility clinics.”
Gays and lesbians use the same kind of unconventional, and often very conventional, means for reproduction that straight people use.
“Clearly Sean is promoting gays at the expense of everyone else.”
It can’t be emphasized enough that when gay people are treated equally under the law as straight people, there is no cost or expense to anyone.
Note that it is no longer a sexual type of relationship, yet Sean also said within minutes of making this comment, “Neither incest nor polygamy is a sexual practice. Neither is defined by sexual longing or behavior” … yet “Not being able to marry your sister, or marrying multiple wives, does not violate anyone’s constitutional rights. Society forbids many behaviors; that does not render a citizen a second-class citizen.”
Yep, only “homophobes” have things to be inhibited. More of Sean’s advocacy for one group and one group only, at the expense of everyone else.
But one thing Sean said, I do agree with…
Which is why we shouldn’t neuter marriage, since that is promoting homosexual relationships, needlessly, at the expense everyone else.
CU’s, DP’s, and RB’s recognize all mutual trust relationships, and are more inclusive than gay marriage. And that seems to be too inclusive for Sean who only advocates for gays.
Marriage advocates for how the man, woman, and child they potentially have together have rights and responsibilities that need to be equally recognized by law (one man and one woman), but that is another thing that must go for Sean’s promotion of gays.
Everyone gets shafted, and the only ones that seem to get helped are the ones who’s relationships are most like the gay model of relationships.
@Sean Sean’s logic of comparing apples and oranges never quits.
Sean, you cannot compare a moral issue with voting. You cannot compare what marriage is to voting. There are no analogies available to compare these two. Give it up.
There are no Constitutional rights violated by denying marriage to those unqualified. Those unqualified include same-sex couples, incestuous couples, under-age couples, etc. To say it is denying Constitutional rights for SSM you then have to make the same claim for any other type of union. You can’t just pick and choose.
The you resort to the logic fallacy of ad hominem – everyone who is against SSM is just a “homophobe.” But the argument doesn’t get dealt with, only marginalized.
By what moral standard can you say that sexual feelings are morally neutral? Since you claim there is no objective moral standard, then that is only your opinion, and a wrong one at that.
Again pulling out the victim card logic fallacy, you claim dehumanization; rather than deal with the individual’s valid argument against SSM, you say being against it is dehumanizing, without even identifying how anyone treats a homophile as less than human.
You know what a “homophile” because I’ve told you. It was the homophiles themselves who came up with that term 100 years ago, but they then abducted the word “gay” so that it would detract from the gross sexual behavior which is part and parcel of the homophile deathstyle; they didn’t want people to think about the behavior, only to think about “loving” people.
You continue to claim there is no reason why SSM should be denied and yet every single day on every single article of this blog in which you’ve commented you have been given rational reasons why SSM is dangerous to marriage, family and society, and that children in same-sex unions are harmed in many ways. You will continue to deny this factual evidence exists because you want to promote SSM at the expense of society, at the expense of children, etc.
You keep saying homophiles don’t have the same rights as everyone else, but the only “right” you bring up is “marriage,” for which there is no civil right! One must be qualified for marriage, and same-sex couples are not qualified without redefining the very nature of the institution, let alone redefining the word. Homophiles are indeed treated equally under the law.
Sean, your latest comment has confirmed my previous remarks. You do retreat to moral neutrality which is a hiding place for the SSM idea and its lack of a core meaniing. That lack you applaude as self-evident. Your homosexual emphasis stands in sharp contrast to your admission that in your view the marital relationship is not a sexual type of relationship at law. As such your view carries no justification for the claim of unjust sexual orientation discrimination which underlies the entire pro-SSM complaint and proposed remedy. And in cintrast with the core meaning of marriage, your SSM view can offer only a shrug when it comes to limitations on eligibility derived from societal concerns regarding incestuous, polygamous, group,and even underaged unions in societal regard for marriage.
Moral neutrality is cowardice and maliciously so. You are terrified of society being anything but indiscriminate. That explains your inability to justify disriminating between marriage and nonmarriage … or even between the homosexualized type of relationship and other types of domestic living arrangements and relationships. In your view This is not about a type of relationship that is sexual in the eyes of the law. Besides you imagine the Constitution requires this asexual view. That stands in contadiction with your assertions about the central importance of homosexual orientation for determining constitutionality of marriage law.
Surrogacey denies procreative justice .. that owed the child. The fear that seeks the hiding place of moral neutrality has tied your hands if not your tongue.
The SSM idea can offer only a shrug as do you. That contrasts with the core meaning of marriage and the moral argument contra surrogacey. The conflict of ideas favors the latter and exposes the brittle fragility of the SSM idea.
“You do retreat to moral neutrality which is a hiding place for the SSM idea and its lack of a core meaniing.”
It’s not a retreat, it’s a statement of fact. There is nothing immoral about same-sex marriage. “Not liking or approving of it” does not create any moral tension.
“Your homosexual emphasis stands in sharp contrast to your admission that in your view the marital relationship is not a sexual type of relationship at law.”
My homosexual emphasis stems from the fact that it is homosexual persons who are being excluded from access to marriage. Once the government starts excluding heterosexual persons from marriage, I will adopt a heterosexual emphasis, ok?
“your SSM view can offer only a shrug when it comes to limitations on eligibility derived from societal concerns regarding incestuous, polygamous, group,and even underaged unions in societal regard for marriage.”
I have explained ad nauseum why it is unconstitutional to prohibit same-sex marriage, but not unconstitutional to prohibit incest or polygamy. That is hardly shrugging.
“Moral neutrality is cowardice and maliciously so.”
If something is morally neutral, then proclaiming it so is neither cowardly nor malicious.
“You are terrified of society being anything but indiscriminate.”
Society is filled with discrimination and I’m not afraid of that at all. What I rebel against is UNCONSTITUTIONAL discrimination, especially when that kind of discrimination hurts children, and other people I care about.
“That explains your inability to justify disriminating between marriage and nonmarriage”
But I do support discriminating between marriage and non-marriage: I approve of married couples, gay or straight, getting special rights and privileges that help protect their relationship.
“Surrogacey denies procreative justice .. that owed the child.”
This seems like a meaningless statement but I guess you’re trying to say that a child deserves to be raised by its biological parents. I’d by more sympathetic to that point of view if were applied to single parents, divorced parents and adoptive parents (like Dr. Morse), and not just used as a blunt instrument to attack gay parents.
“The SSM idea can offer only a shrug as do you.”
I don’t know much about marital body language but I don’t really know what more you people want in terms of a logical, detailed explanation for why same-sex marriage should be legal. It helps stabilize gay relationships, creates a more secure family environment for children, honors our nation’s constitutional imperative to treat all citizens equally, would raise much-needed revenue for the states, etc. If you can shrug off these very substantial reasons with no reservation then I question your commitment to family, the rule of law, and child welfare.
The union of husband wife, as per the sexual basis for marriage law, is not morally neutral. This shows another difference between the marriage idea and the SSM idea.
The SSM campaign demands moral approbation via the assertion of moral equivalence … a false equivalence at that. This is the reason for the retreat to the hiding place of moral neutrallity. This illustrates yet another glaring contradiction between the rhetoric and the argurmentation of SSMers.
You have not explained but you have asserted and then shrugged. A type of relationship that is not sexual at law is not justly limited by the sexual basis of incestuous sexual attraction or behavior or feelings.
You have acknowledged your emphasis on something that is irrelevan to a type of relationship you say is not sexual at law. Your are adrift in your own confusions.
The type odfrelationship you have in mind is the gay relationship which is indistinguishable from the rest of nonmarriage. Slapping the label marriage on it is unjustified. Your own argumentation demonstrates that. Your rely on an unjust means to shower favoritism on an unjust end.
And your speculations about SSM are unsupported. Empty promises that SSM can not deliver. You are selling snake oil.
Pocreative justice does apply to all children and all parents. Yourclaimed concern for the welfare of children is revealed to be conditional on your political emphasis on gay identity politics. Hiding behind a facade of moral neutrality is cowardly maliciousness you have now declared as prompting your view of surrogacy.
John Howard had you pegged.