Canada's Assisted Reproduction law

[valsa]

And stopping paid surrogacy

creates more of a market for trafficking in vulnerable women to do it.

[valsa]

Voluntary surrogacy is fine though.

Why does paying someone for something suddenly mean it's not voluntary? Why can't we trust women to make the decision for themselves?

[fluttershies]

Why does paying someone for something suddenly mean it's not voluntary? Why can't we trust women to make the decision for themselves?

If there's a financial incentive, it's not truly voluntary.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Article on study re effect of Canadian law on donor availability:

http://www.iaac.ca/content/fewer-donors ... uction-act

CBC radio story on the issue:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/20 ... roduction/

[fluttershies]

creates more of a market for trafficking in vulnerable women to do it.

It still means that an offence has been made. If someone can't be arrested for trafficking, they can still be arrested for arranging a paid surrogacy. If someone wants to be a surrogate that badly then why aren't medical costs enough? If you're not bringing up the child then what else has to be paid for?

[valsa]

If there's a financial incentive, it's not truly voluntary.

So I don't voluntarily work? I don't voluntarily shop at Sam's? I don't voluntarily get my gas from Meijer? I didn't voluntarily choose community college over a university?

[fluttershies]

Article on study re effect of Canadian law on donor availability:

http://www.iaac.ca/content/fewer-donors ... uction-act

CBC radio story on the issue:

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/20 ... roduction/

Donor availability is less important than women not treated as wombs for hire. As was said upthread, no one has the right to a newborn.

[valsa]

If someone can't be arrested for trafficking, they can still be arrested for arranging a paid surrogacy.

But you still haven't explained why they should be arrested for the surrogacy, outside of the trafficking.

Maternity clothing. Lost wages during pregnancy and recovery. Pain, discomfort, inconvenience, and general health risk during pregnancy.

[crassy]

While I don't necessarily agree with the law there are a lot of ethical issues surrounding surrogacy. Namely: the alienation of women's labour, the buying and selling of a (potential) human, degradation, coercion, and a whole host of other things.

There are a lot of issues in the surrogacy community.

I believe the US is one of the few, if not the only, Western country that allows commercial surrogacy.

[crassy]

Why does paying someone for something suddenly mean it's not voluntary? Why can't we trust women to make the decision for themselves?

We can...the problem comes when women are forced into being surrogates. It happens quite a bit, perhaps not in Canada, but in other countries, such as India, it is a big money maker. There is also the worry that surrogacy will appeal to those who have no other choice. In that case it won't be voluntary and the law seeks to protect those who are in a vulnerable position.

I think that commercial surrogacy should be illegal. Like usual the government just uses a blanket issue rather than attacking the actual problems. Surrogacy should not be illegal, the coercion of someone into surrogacy should.

[fluttershies]

Maternity clothing. Lost wages during pregnancy and recovery. Pain, discomfort, inconvenience, and general health risk during pregnancy.

I think paying towards maternity clothing (in voucher form, not cash and it should be means-tested) and lost wages would be reasonable (lost wages are covered in the UK). However discomfort etc is just part of pregnancy and if you're not willing to put up with it, don't become a surrogate.

[valsa]

Surrogacy should not be illegal, the coercion of someone into surrogacy should.

I agree with this. However, I don't think financial incentive counts as coercion any more than the dozens of other decisions everyone makes each day based on financial considerations.

[valsa]

However discomfort etc is just part of pregnancy and if you're not willing to put up with it, don't become a surrogate.

That's pretty cold for someone who claims to be concerned for the possible surrogates. Then again, maybe I should expect it from someone condescending enough to think that protecting women requires taking away their choice in the matter.

[Mama Mia]

I think the problem is that the surrogates aren't paid enough money.

They are taking significant amount of time out of their life, with a risk of life altering complications - they should be compensated fairly. Even if they have the smoothest pregnancy in the world, they still need to buy clothing, food, medical care, they will still have to go through labor and delivery and recovery. They run the risk of a complication at the birth that could make them sterile ( or worse ).

While it isn't as dangerous as being a crab fisherman in Alaska, it certainly is one of the more physically demanding activities that people perform.

Why shouldn't they be paid well for it. It's an extremely valuable service.

[CanadianHippie]

Omg are you serious? Is this only in Canada where gay men can't donate?? WHAT is the reasoning behind it?

Fear of AIDS. The same reasoning behind not allowing them to donate blood (like xDreamerx said). Basically it`s an archaic law that can no longer be justified unless you believe that only gay men get HIV.

[CanadianHippie]

I think paying towards maternity clothing (in voucher form, not cash and it should be means-tested) and lost wages would be reasonable (lost wages are covered in the UK). However discomfort etc is just part of pregnancy and if you're not willing to put up with it, don't become a surrogate.

Don't know about where you are, but here parental and maternity benefits are available to surrogate mothers.

[Patsy]

Fun facts:

Surrogacy can't be paid for in Australia, just like egg, sperm, blood and kidney donation can't be paid for. I'm inclined to think that that's the way to go, but I haven't exactly done extensive reading on it, either.

Altruistic surrogacy has recent, limited legality, but it's still illegal in Tasmania.

[2xx1xy1JD]

It still means that an offence has been made. If someone can't be arrested for trafficking, they can still be arrested for arranging a paid surrogacy. If someone wants to be a surrogate that badly then why aren't medical costs enough? If you're not bringing up the child then what else has to be paid for?

With a higher risk of twin/multiple births comes a significant risk of needing restricted activity or bedrest.

With any birth, there is likely to be a period of time off work needed. Pregnancy/parental leave benefits pay only 55% of salary, to a maximum of $400/week.

As we discuss frequently on this board, there are certain risks that increase with the number of children that someone has. Being a surrogate can impact on someone's future plans to birth their own children.

I don't see how you can say, on one hand, that it's such an onerous task that nobody should be "coerced" into it via financial incentive (which implies that it is far more demanding than any other job), and yet at the same time you wonder why any surrogate could legitimately want/need anything beyond mere medical expenses.

[2xx1xy1JD]

We can...the problem comes when women are forced into being surrogates. It happens quite a bit, perhaps not in Canada, but in other countries, such as India, it is a big money maker. There is also the worry that surrogacy will appeal to those who have no other choice. In that case it won't be voluntary and the law seeks to protect those who are in a vulnerable position.

I think that commercial surrogacy should be illegal. Like usual the government just uses a blanket issue rather than attacking the actual problems. Surrogacy should not be illegal, the coercion of someone into surrogacy should.

The problem is that banning payment for gametes or surrogates doesn't stop anyone from hopping on a plane. We live next door to the United States, where it is legal to pay for this things. We also know that some families will head to places like India, where we have evidence of poor regulation and exploitation. Again, listen to what Kelly Jordan and Dr. Carl Laskin are saying on the CBC radio clip.

I agree that nobody should be coerced into surrogacy. However, treating potential parents as criminals and threatening to put them in jail for up to 10 years for not actually coercing, but merely PAYING a donor or surrogate, is draconian, and there's no evidence that it protects women (including women in other countries) better than the American model.

More on mixing of church and state, and on how the law is actually forcing parents underground and therefore totally unregulated:

http://www.lawtimesnews.com/Focus-On/Re ... n-in-limbo

[Elle]

I think paying towards maternity clothing (in voucher form, not cash and it should be means-tested) and lost wages would be reasonable (lost wages are covered in the UK). However discomfort etc is just part of pregnancy and if you're not willing to put up with it, don't become a surrogate.

It can be more than discomfort. Also the process of childbirth isn't easy. Being pregnant involves your time. Surrogates who are paid are compensated for their time. Medical appointments, things you don't get to do, things you need to eat that you might not otherwise, etc.. Just like the military, it's a job, even if you're in the reserves. That's why even our reservists are paid. Time off still involves work.

If someone wants to rent their uterus, why not let them? It won't prevent those willing to do it altruistically from doing so.

[Swamptribe]

Yet, paying for human body parts, and that includes sperm and eggs, is a horrible idea. I don't' have a problem with the idea of giving a surrogate a stipend of some sort, but I can see the point that its tantamount to buying a child.

It is irrelevant if it's not regulated in other countries. Hell, in india poor people will sell kidneys and other organs to the rich from elsewhere. THIS IS WRONG, IT IS UNETHICAL, IT IS INHUMAN.

And yes, I meant to shout that last bit. I'm worked up today.

[valsa]

Yet, paying for human body parts, and that includes sperm and eggs, is a horrible idea.

Says you. I think people (by which I mean "competent adults") should be able to sell sex, surrogacy, and body parts.

[emmiedahl]

I agree that sex should be a sellable commodity if all parties are agreeable and not being coerced.

I think most arguments against it come to the idea that there is something sacred about sex. Sure, to some people that is true. But for some people, it is a straightforward biological thing. If a woman views it that way and wants to make good money selling it, I am not one to stand in the way. Ditto with egg and sperm sales. To some people, like me, the idea of having offspring I will never love and hold is unbearable. But I don't expect everyone to feel that way.

[Anxious Girl]

.

THIS IS WRONG, IT IS UNETHICAL, IT IS INHUMAN.

And yes, I meant to shout that last bit. I'm worked up today.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Yet, paying for human body parts, and that includes sperm and eggs, is a horrible idea. I don't' have a problem with the idea of giving a surrogate a stipend of some sort, but I can see the point that its tantamount to buying a child.

It is irrelevant if it's not regulated in other countries. Hell, in india poor people will sell kidneys and other organs to the rich from elsewhere. THIS IS WRONG, IT IS UNETHICAL, IT IS INHUMAN.

And yes, I meant to shout that last bit. I'm worked up today.

It's not really irrelevant if an unreasonably restrictive law is actually FUELING the demand in India.

American law is also relevant when you share a very long, undefended border with the United States, and have most of the population living within a short drive of the border.

Using ALL CAPS doesn't magically make an argument persuasive. What is the great harm that is so "wrong, unethical and inhuman" about providing reasonable compensation to Canadian sperm and eggs donors, who need to be at least 21, who must go through a rigorous screening process, who sign legal contracts and who are fully informed and consent to the process? In the case of egg donors, would it be so evil to compensate a competent and consenting adult for the fact that she would be required to take fertility medications and undergo an invasive medical procedure to retrieve the eggs?