Pope Francis called Monday for a universal ban on the “despicable” practice of surrogate motherhood, as he included the “commercialization” of pregnancy in an annual speech listing threats to global peace and human dignity.
In a foreign policy address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, Francis lamented that 2024 had dawned at a time in history in which peace is “increasingly threatened, weakened and in some part lost.”
Citing Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, migration, climate crises and the “immoral” production of nuclear and conventional weapons, Francis delivered a lengthy laundry list of the ills afflicting humanity and the increasing violation of international humanitarian law that allows them.
But Francis also listed smaller-scale issues that he said were threats to peace and human dignity, including surrogacy. Francis said the life of the unborn child must be protected and not “suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking.”
“Commercializing pregnancy”
Yeah, allowing my friend living with lupus to have a healthy biological child. They treated the surrogate as a member of the family, even long after the birth. Fuck you, pope.
The entire concept of surrogacy started exactly as a means for wealthy couples to have children without the need for the woman to “ruin” her body with a pregnancy.
The example you cite is, at best, an exception not the norm.
There is no shame in adopting or never having children, both of which are better options than to subject another human being to carry a child they will not raise or keep contact.
Oh so your examples are how it “started” and mine are “exceptions” therefore you win. Whatever.
Are you two substantially disagreeing?
When surrogacy is merely a luxury to spare the rich mother the discomforts of bearing a child, it can be bad, and for other reasons such as health and infertility it’s totally fine?
Yeah I’m disagreeing that it can “be bad.”
This is a reproductive technology. I’m not going to sit here and judge women for how they use it. I’ve witnessed pregnancies all the way through and I’M. NOT. JUDGING. PERIOD.
You know what it’s like? To sit here and fie upon slovenly rich bitches who use this reproductive technology for their own comfort because they’re lazy and immoral? It’s about a hair’s breadth away from the way people demonize women who avail themselves of abortions for being “sluts who don’t want to deal with the consequences of their actions.”
I won’t go anywhere near that shit.
As far as I can see, I’m the only one here who knows anyone who’s used surrogacy, and it was for a legit health reason. I have ZERO patience to listen to anyone’s internet armchair judgery, while they even remotely entertain the idea that we should take this reproductive technology away because of how we think people are using it.
Nope. Nope to the nope. Fuck ALL of that.
There are legitimate worries concerning the commodification of people’s bodies. We already do not allow people to sell oneself into slavery, and many countries do not allow the selling of one’s own body parts (which is why organs must be donated in many countries).
I’m the only one here who knows anyone who’s used surrogacy, and it was for a legit health reason.
I’m not sure why you think it matters, but my sibling recently had a child through surrogacy. No one is disagreeing about the health case. But more exploitative cases can exist. Not everything should be made into a product.
That is not how a conversation is handled.
You voice your opinion, I voice mine, then we keep comparing ideas in order to advance the others understanding of it.
I did not attack you, I pointed issues to your statement and added my own counter points.
I also did not attack you, I just pointed out the emptiness of your argument.
Why didn’t they just adopt? There’s 100k+ children waiting to be adopted right now in the US. Why go through all the trouble and effort of surrogacy just to have a biological child? Seems weird to me.
Most of those 100k kids waiting to be adopted are older kids. A lot of people want to start with an infant. Not everyone is equipped to adopt a teenager who has been in foster care for years. Then there are people who want bio kids.
Source? My buddy adopted last year and had no problem finding an infant for adoption.
Your one friend != all experiences.
The average age of a child in foster care is more than 8 years old, and there are slightly more boys than girls.
They got their source from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/research-data-technology/statistics-research/afcars
Because adoption isn’t as easy as it sounds. A couple friends of ours started the process 5 or 6 years ago and weren’t having any luck (even after spending tens of thousands of dollars on the process) and weren’t having success so they asked someone we know to be a surrogate for them in 2019 and had their son in 2020. It wasn’t until literally two weeks ago that they finally got placed with their adopted child from several states away from a young pregnant woman who didn’t want to keep the baby. The adoption process costed them significantly more than the surrogacy. They could afford it because one is a physician but this highlights how difficult it is unless you want to adopt an older child who most likely has behavioral issues after being forcefully removed from a bad situation.
It sounds like your buddies specifically wanted a newborn which led to the difficulty. Why? A three, four, or five year old doesn’t meet their standards?
I addressed that at the end of my comment. They were fostering (with plans to adopt) a child around that age for a while who still received visits from her mom. The mother, who had her custody removed by the state, persuaded the girl to make false accusations against our friends in order to torpedo the adoption process.
“Unborn child must be protected and not suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking”.
Until he is born that is, right?
Yup, then they get to do the rounds with the priests they keep hiding.
Religion once again tackling the important issues…
I am no religious expert, but going by what I remember from church, Jesus was sent here for all of us, so wouldn’t that make the Virgin Mary basically a surrogate?
Jesus was sent here for all of us
Sure let’s check the Bible
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Mark 13:10-11
Uh oh. It seems like Jesus wasnt sent for everyone only for a small group of loyal followers from one ethnic group.
If you are going to quote me, you should start with the beginning where I said “I am no religious expert”.
Technically, but remember that Mary didn’t consent or even know what was happening. Jesus was a rape baby…
@Bonehead Luke 1:38 “'I am the Lord’s servant, Mary answered. ‘May your word to me be fulfilled.’ Then the angel left her.” / Luke 1:46-48 “And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,”
Does not sound like she didn’t know what was going on, or that she didn’t consent…
She was like 13. The best age to get boned by Christianity
Mo and Aisha at 9 - makes me think fundie abrahamic religions don’t care as much about age of consent.
So you’re just going to accept the story from some dude that wrote it years later?
Decades later by known liars.
She was already pregnant at that point.
Luke rewrote Matthew and cleaned it up. Here is what Matt wrote
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Matthew chapter 1:18-19
No consent given.
Doesn’t that just claim that Joseph was unaware of her pregnancy?
At the moment of it later he knew
I can kind of see the angle with turning kids into a commodity that only well situated people can afford (if they can’t or don’t want to have one themselves), as it is now.
On the other hand, banning the practice is impractical, intruding on personal choices, and most of all, cruel to couples who can’t conceive a child themselves, be it because of infertility or because they are a non-heterosexual couple.
But then there is also the argument to be made that people should adopt already existing kids instead. Any child that has to grow up in foster care or generally without a loving home is one too many.
Not sure where i stand on this myself actually. People should be allowed free choice of course, but that inevitably leads to this bias towards the rich.
No normal or even poor couple, no matter how good parents they would be, could afford or convince a surrogate mother to bear their child. And allowing this to be a privilege for the rich seems mega fucked.
Sounds to me like there is a class of people that shouldn’t continue to hold position. Even Jesus said the rich where detestable. “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven.” Once ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ aren’t a viable distinction anymore, the problem you describe is resolved. Not that other problems wouldn’t be present, just saying some change is needed.
Surrogacy as a concept always sounded very shady.
We don’t ban things because they’re not affordable enough. We would ban quite a lot of medicine if that were so. This is religious horseshit trying to sweeten itself with a populist angle.
I think choosing surrogacy over adoption says something about a person character. To me it says you care more about your genes than the child. And then you have pieces of shit like this russian oligarchs young wife.
I admit that I may be ignorant to parts adoption vs surrogacy, but I don’t like what I have seen online.
Wow so incredibly judgy.
Like a lot of people who know nothing about the issue, you assume that adoption is easily available without limit and the reality is more complex. Unless you are taking special needs children into your home to care for them, don’t go around telling people they have an obligation to adopt.
I know a couple who used surrogacy because she had a health issue that would make pregnancy high risk for her. If you want to get in her face and say she is not allowed to use technology to make a decision that everyone else gets to make, and she’s a bad person unless she adopts, that’s your fever dream to enjoy on your own.
Banning the technology outright because of what a Russian oligarch does with it? Insane.
Okay, so instead of insulting me, try to enlighten me. I already admitted that I have not had any direct influence with someone who chose surrogacy. What I have seen online is that adoption is cheaper and equally as long as surragacy. The only benefit I see is that the parent will know their genes are in the child, and a poor woman will get a paycheck for using her body. Please explain why I shouldn’t judge those who choose surragacy?
You’ve already ignored everything I’ve done to enlighten you on this topic. I’m not going to keep trying. Your attitudes about having children are simplistic and ignorant. These aren’t insults. An insult would be that you’re ugly too.
Im not saying we should ban it, I’m saying we should find a way so not rich people have access too. Perhaps introduce some restrictions to that effect, but ultimately it is individual choice.
Also, I am from one of the myriad of places outside the United States that has socialized healthcare.
For the most part we don’t have medicine or treatments that people need to be able to afford. Insurance will cover anything.
Have you ever considered that the high expense of paying someone to be pregnant on your behalf pays a great deal of cash to potentially poor women? Just because rich people are the ones paying for it doesn’t mean they are the only ones that benefit from it. I’d like to imagine a public healthcare system that will pay for the procedure if you can convince a friend or relative to carry the baby for you. That’s conceivable to me. But being pregnant is 9 months of hard work and has health risks. Even if we can imagine making surrogacy available to all, it’s hard to imagine making surrogates easily available to all. I say if you have the wealth to make this a job for someone, there’s nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of women in the world who have very healthy bodies and can tolerate a pregnancy well who don’t have high paying professional skills.
So while we wait for the perfect egalitarian world to arrive where wealth has no meaning and everything is equally available to all, should we ban this? That’s the only question, really.
Some quick info on adoption: at least where I live, there aren’t a giant list of babies waiting for someone to adopt them. There are lots of kids (usually age 5+) who need loving homes, but have mental and/or physical special needs, or behavioral issues (due to abuse, etc).
Most people who want to adopt a baby are going to be on a waiting list for a year or more (depending on how selective they are). And this is also cost-prohibitive (anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000, in my area) unless you don’t need an agency.
Yup. In the US, I think there are something like 20 potential adoptive parents qualified for every infant that comes through the private and semi-private systems. There is literally zero “saving” that goes in with healthy infant adoption. If people just don’t want to be pregnant or have some genetic issues (official or not) that they’d rather not pass on, then there’s a place for it (though I wish it were regulate much, much better), but they need to understand that it’s for their own benefit and to just get in line.
I don’t think the objection is to the concept of surrogacy as much as it the commerical aspect of it. Kind of like how if it was legal to sell your own organs the poor might be forced by society to do so.
I don’t think he’d have an issue of doing it as a favor based on the wording.
deleted by creator
No, that’s not what’s happening.
Poor women and women in poor counties are used as baby ovens for the wealthy, or those with the means to rent their wombs. Which is why he specifically refers to it as the “commercialization”.
He’s saying that’s exploitive and immoral as there as children waiting to be adopted. So instead of “renting” a poor women’s womb, adopt a child instead.
Also, FWIW I’m pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean I should pretend everyone who thinks differently is evil.
Opposing abortion isn’t always about a misogynistic need to control women. For some people it’s a genuine belief that life begins at conception, which is what Pope Francis appears to sincerely believe.
That doesn’t extend to everyone, and I’d go so far as to say most of the Evangelical American pro-life movement are just reactionary hateful shitstains who are genuine misogynists that wouldn’t hesitate to get their mistress an abortion.
Anyways, just my $0.02
I would highly suggest people look into the international surrogacy programs/companies and their issues. I want to say Radiolab may have done a podcast about it. Basically western couples think they are giving a life changing amount of money to a women in poverty, but in reality the companies pocket most of the money and the women are kept in substandard conditions sometimes.
It’s not something I think we should outright ban, but the industry is in dire need of international attention and regulation.
You figure he’d be on board with creating more kids for Catholic priest to rape and molest.
Jesus was born to a surrogate mother.
Pope Francis can Sur-a-get deez nuts in his mouth.
Oh wait… He might like that…
This is the best summary I could come up with:
ROME (AP) — Pope Francis called Monday for a universal ban on the “despicable” practice of surrogate motherhood, as he included the “commercialization” of pregnancy in an annual speech listing threats to global peace and human dignity.
In a foreign policy address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, Francis lamented that 2024 had dawned at a time in history in which peace is “increasingly threatened, weakened and in some part lost.”
“I consider despicable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs,” he said.
Francis has previously voiced the Catholic Church’s opposition to what he has called “uterus for rent,” and some European countries prohibit it, including Spain and Italy.
It marked an unusual break with Francis’ usual tendency to spare Moscow direct, public blame for the invasion when expressing solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
He called for an immediate cease-fire, including in Lebanon, the liberation of hostages held in Gaza, and reiterated the Holy See’s position seeking a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians and an internationally guaranteed special status for Jerusalem.
The original article contains 636 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
It is interesting to see the Pope using secular arguments instead of simply saying God won’t approve (which is completely valid from a religious perspective). The invocation of God in any serious opinion is silly, and now even religious leaders know that.
Catholic Church saying “look over there that’s terrible” whilst not doing much about the rape and abuse within its own backyard.
ban on the “despicable” practice of surrogate motherhood.
Wasn’t Mary technically a surrogate?
Oh snap
I don’t think so, no. She didn’t carry the baby for another person and Jesus was of her DNA. She was supposedly made pregnant by god rather than another human (some folks wonder if god actually came down and fucked her or just placed a baby in her womb, which I think is an interesting thing to think about). Either way, surrogacy generally means the woman carries a child that doesn’t have her DNA, but Christian theology, across denominations and sects, all seem to agree he was fully human which would come from Mary.
Generally it’s surrogacy even if the baby has their DNA. If two identical twins could theoretically carry the other’s baby as a surrogate despite having the same DNA.
Either God raped her or God gave her IVF against her knowledge. Because she raised the child as her own regardless and it’s not like they could DNA test.
Religion is fucking stupid
“Hey Mary” “Yes, Joseph” “So, you are pregnant…” “Yes! I told you so already! It was god!” “Yeah, about that, remember the angel, the other day, Gabriel I think it was… big flaming sword you said right? Was that… was that a metaphor or something?” “…” “I mean, you can tell me, we are in this together Mary, I’d just like to know” “No Joseph, no, he had a physical, real, big throbbing sword!” “Throbbing?” “Flaming, Joseph, flaming… YOU NEVER LISTEN TO ME”
Consistency isn’t exactly a strong suit for religion over time
Religion is dogshit
I tend to agree. But surrogacy is humab trafficking
