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.”

  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    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.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • wjrii@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

      • Whoresradish@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        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.

        https://her.womenworking.com/24-yr-old-woman-21-children-wants-100-kids-childhood-dream-big-happy-family-547687

        I admit that I may be ignorant to parts adoption vs surrogacy, but I don’t like what I have seen online.