Should single men have right to exploit women's bodies?

[Chessmistress]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/fe ... -reproduce
Excerpt:

We know we are right in thinking that one cannot challenge patriarchy without fundamentally revising our understanding of family structures. Where we have gone wrong is in assuming that a revision of family structures will, in and of itself, challenge patriarchy. On the contrary, it can accommodate it.

This is why all feminists – and indeed anyone serious about tackling patriarchy at the root – should be deeply concerned about the World Health Organisation’s new definition of infertility. Whereas up until now infertility has been defined solely in medical terms (as the failure to achieve pregnancy after 12 months of unprotected sex), a revised definition will give each individual “a right to reproduce”.

According to Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this new definition “includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women”

“It puts a stake in the ground and says an individual’s got a right to reproduce whether or not they have a partner. It’s a big change.”

It sure is. From now on, even single men who want children – but cannot have them solely because they do not have a female partner to impregnate – will be classed as “infertile”. I hope I’m not the only person to see a problem with this.

I am all in favour of different family structures. I’m especially in favour of those that undermine an age-old institution set up to allow men to claim ownership of women’s reproductive labour and offspring.

I am less enthusiastic about preserving a man’s “right” to reproductive labour regardless of whether or not he has a female partner. The safeguarding of such a right marks not so much an end to patriarchy as the introduction of a new, improved, pick ‘n’ mix, no-strings-attached version.

There is nothing in Adamson’s words to suggest he sees a difference between the position of a reproductively healthy single woman and a reproductively healthy single man. Yet the difference seems obvious to me. A woman can impregnate herself using donor sperm; a man must impregnate another human being using his sperm.


In order to exercise his “right” to reproduce, a man requires the cooperation – or failing that, forced labour – of a female person for the duration of nine months. He requires her to take serious health risks, endure permanent physical side-effects and then to supress any bond she may have developed with the growing foetus. A woman requires none of these things from a sperm donor.

This new definition of infertility effectively enshrines a man’s right to do to women what patriarchy has always done to them: appropriate their labour, exploit their bodies and then claim ownership of any resultant human life.

Already it is being suggested that this new definition may lead to a change in UK surrogacy law. And while some may find it reassuring to see Josephine Quintavalle of the conservative pressure group Comment on Reproductive Ethics complaining about the sidelining of “the biological process and significance of natural intercourse between a man and a woman”, that really isn’t the problem here.

Men do not have a fundamental right to use female bodies, neither for reproduction nor for sex. A man who wants children but has no available partner is no more “infertile” than a man who wants sex but has no available partner is “sexually deprived”.

The WHO’s new definition is symptomatic of men’s ongoing refusal to recognise female boundaries. Our bodies are our own, not a resource to be put at men’s disposal. Until all those who claim to be opposed to patriarchal exploitation recognise this, progress towards gender-based equality will be very one-sided indeed.

More sources:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/he ... 48750.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10 ... ew-defini/

As rightly stated in the first article, such definition is going to basically give to the men the "right" of exploiting women through the practice of commercial surrogacy!
In order to protect the freedom and the dignity of women, the Council of Europe very recently rejected the so-called "surrogacy guidelines" that were, in fact, a trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_715312.asp

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), a human rights organisation, has voted to reject a proposal to introduce international guidelines on surrogacy and children's rights.

It voted 83 to 77 against a draft recommendation to create 'European guidelines to safeguard children's rights in relation to surrogacy arrangements', prepared by rapporteur Professor Petra De Sutter, a member of the Flemish Green Party.

The report included proposals to ban 'for-profit' surrogacy as well as recommending that the Council of Ministers work with the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) on private international law issues concerning children born through surrogacy arrangements, including legal parenthood.

Distinct from the European Union, the Council of Europe was set up in 1949 by various European states, including the UK, to promote democracy and human rights. While it has itself no law-making power, it performs an advocacy role and campaigns on rights issues. Its parliament includes MPs from national parliaments across the European Union, Turkey and Russia.

It was not the first time the Council of Europe has declined to draw up guidelines on surrogacy, a topic on which there is divided opinion across Europe. A previous vote against the draft report by the Council of Europe's Social Affairs and Health Committee in March was preceded by a protest rally in Paris against surrogacy.

In the latest draft recommendation, Professor de Sutter said she believed that members of the Committee were 'too divided on the human rights and ethical issues related to surrogacy' and that she did not believe a 'majority exists on whether or not altruistic surrogacy arrangements should be allowed'. As such, the report was updated to relate only to for-profit surrogacy and its impact on children.

Professor de Sutter said that she did not herself believe that altruistic surrogacy arrangements should be prohibited. It had been alleged that her support for certain surrogacy practices and connections to clinics in India represented a conflict of interest but these allegations were dismissed by the Committee in January this year.

Earlier this year, over 100,000 European citizens signed a petition for PACE to vote in support of a ban on surrogacy, while the European Parliament of the EU passed a resolution condemning all forms of surrogacy in December 2015. In Italy, 50 'lesbian and activist women' signed a petition last month against 'the commercialisation of women's bodies', reports The European Post.

Surrogacy remains regulated at a national level across Europe. In the UK, surrogacy is permitted while 'commercial' surrogacy is prohibited by legislation. But some countries, including France and Italy, adopt more restrictive approaches.

Feminists have been accused by the surrogacy lobby of "being against women self-determination", pretending that self-determination would make people immune from liabilities (including political liabilities), including not just only political liabilities against other women but also against the human rights of the children: it's not just only that women and children must not be reduced to objects, it's even that self-determination is real just only if it's free from the needs and the disparity in the balance of power, between those who have wealth and power and those without it.
With surrogacy women become objects enlisted in auction catalogues of brokers, catalogues on which customers can choose according to the physical and mental features of the women (including the sexual tastes and even the level of education) then such customers can set contracts that should make everybody literally cringe for the absolute loss of dignity that such contracts underlies.
Now "thanks" to the corruption within WHO, even after a victory within the Council of Europe, women have to face again this very huge problem, worldwide, and even in Europe, probably the first will be UK, where it's very likely that, even due the Brexit, the practice of surrogacy will be totally allowed, even for purely commercial purposes.

Personally I think that's a shame and that all women should stand against such blatant attack, just like it recently happened in Poland.

What do you think NSGs?

[Lady Scylla]

Time to register as a surrogate. I've got bills to pay.

[The Skrall]

No one should be "exploiting" other peoples' bodies.
This surrogacy should only be allowed if the female gives permission.

[Community Values]

Doesn't the only thing this means is that single men gain (and rightfully so) the ability to start a family, by adoption? I don't think it means that single men have the right to impregnate women. If it was the right to impregnate women, the WHO would be abolished.

As long as the surrogacy is voluntary, what's the problem?

But to the topic question, I don't think you'll find a single person on this site that believes any men or women should the right right to exploit another persons body.

[The Skrall]

I don't think it means that single men have the right to impregnate women.

That would be legal rape for men.
I don't understand why surrogacy is bad, as long as the female gives permission while knowing the consequences of what will happen.

[The Liberated Territories]

I don't think it means that single men have the right to impregnate women.

That would be legal rape for men.

Thankfully rape is illegal.

[Fartsniffage]

A whole 100,000 Europeans signed the petition?

We got more than half a million just in the UK on a petition to ban Trump from the country so people, other than a few malcontents, are clearly not that bothered over this issue.

[Lady Scylla]

A look at WHO's infertillity page on their site shows no definition even close to this.

[Fartsniffage]

Doesn't the only thing this means is that single men gain (and rightfully so) the ability to start a family, by adoption? I don't think it means that single men have the right to impregnate women. If it was the right to impregnate women, the WHO would be abolished.

As long as the surrogacy is voluntary, what's the problem?

But to the topic question, I don't think you'll find a single person on this site that believes any men or women should the right right to exploit another persons body.

I think I've seen people argue for compulsory blood donation, but I could be wrong.

[Community Values]

I don't think it means that single men have the right to impregnate women.

That would be legal rape for men.

Yes, it would be. Good thing the WHO isn't supporting legal rape.

[Central European Commonwealth]

I don't see how this has anything to do with exploiting one's body? No-one forces anyone to carry a child for someone else.

transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

How is this relevant to the debate in any way? Her name is Petra De Sutter, not "Transsexual MP De Sutter".

[Shonburg]

trojan horse conceived by the transexual MP De Sutter in order to grant to the men the privilege to exploit women even more!

What does this have to do with her decisions and statements? Her being Trans is not relevant unless you're trying to slur transwomen.

As for the rest, there is nothing wrong with surrogacy. It is especially helpful for gay couples or heterosexual couples where the woman is infertile and want to have kids. As long as the surrogate is consenting to being a surrogate it should be legal.

[Dalvius]

Of course, the Patriarchy couldn't exist without it.

[Ochea]

I don't see why surrogacy is bad. If the woman allows it, why should it be illegal?
Surrogacy helps infertile and homosexual couples have children.

[Lady Scylla]

We know we are right in thinking that one cannot challenge patriarchy without fundamentally revising our understanding of family structures.

Starting off with immediately saying you're right invalidates your credibility to be unbiased, and a legitimate source for such policies.

[Galloism]

Remember: women are basically children and can't consent to anything.

[USS Monitor]

As long as the surrogacy is voluntary, what's the problem?

^This.

But to the topic question, I don't think you'll find a single person on this site that believes any men or women should the right right to exploit another persons body.

But you might find an Ebola virus that thinks it has the right to exploit people's bodies.

[Lady Scylla]

As long as the surrogacy is voluntary, what's the problem?

^This.

But to the topic question, I don't think you'll find a single person on this site that believes any men or women should the right right to exploit another persons body.

But you might find an Ebola virus that thinks it has the right to exploit people's bodies.

Good thing you're a ship.

[USS Monitor]

A look at WHO's infertillity page on their site shows no definition even close to this.

Do you mean to say that Chessmistress is distorting the facts?

[Mad hatters in jeans]

Took me a while to understand what this latest bout of click-bait rage from chessmistress was about

Surrogacy

The practice of bearing a child for another person or couple. In gestational (also known as 'full' or 'host') surrogacy, the surrogate carries an embryo conceived through IVF. In traditional (also known as 'partial' or 'straight') surrogacy, the surrogate's own egg is fertilised with the intended father's sperm.

IVF being

In vitro fertilisation (or fertilization; IVF) is a process by which an egg is fertilised by sperm outside the body: in vitro ("in glass").

So it would seem the upset is about the idea that consenting women would be used as baby production facilities for a variety of people;

According to Dr David Adamson, one of the authors of the new standards, this new definition “includes the rights of all individuals to have a family, and that includes single men, single women, gay men, gay women”

Although this is regulated in a number of countries. The real argument seems to stem from anti-gay types.

Surrogacy remains regulated at a national level across Europe. In the UK, surrogacy is permitted while 'commercial' surrogacy is prohibited by legislation. But some countries, including France and Italy, adopt more restrictive approaches. In January the Italian interior minister, Angelino Alfano, sparked controversy over comments that people who use surrogacy should be treated as sex offenders and sent to prison (see BioNews 834).

Meanwhile, thousands of people have reportedly marched in Paris this month against same-sex marriage and the use of surrogacy to help same-sex couples conceive. Surrogacy is not permitted in France, but the government has been told by the European Court of Human Rights to recognise children born through surrogacy (see BioNews 761). Following this ruling, the country's top civil court ruled that children born overseas via assisted reproduction can be adopted by same-sex parents

This argument seems to be rooted in preventing same-sex couples from having their own children via a surrogate. Because apparently some of them think it's a sex offence.

Although Chessmistress seems to pick and choose parts that fit into the idea of women being objects, completely missing the part about the surrogate women will be giving their consent.

As far as feminist arguments go (this one seems to be grasping at straws) this does not sound progressive. If anything this argument sounds like an attempt to stymie the rights of same sex couples to have a family.

A separate argument within the telegraph article suggests that the real issue is

Critics last night called the decision “absurd nonsense” as they raised concerns that couples with medical infertility could lose the chance for a child if NHS authorities rewrite their rules.

Under current NHS policies, fertility treatment is only funded for those proven infertile, and those where fertility is unexplained but attempts at conception have failed.

There are also statements about lack of finance from the NHS* in the UK regarding IVF and that this latest ruling might conflict with that but those don't seem to fit into Chessmistress's narrative about women being objects.

*Among other issues such as;

In the UK, it is illegal to pay surrogates, resulting in a severe shortage of women wanting to take on the role. Similarly, there is a national shortage of sperm and eggs, with donors only able to receive expenses.

edit words

[Lady Scylla]

A look at WHO's infertillity page on their site shows no definition even close to this.

Do you mean to say that Chessmistress is distorting the facts?

Appears so. Take 'em away, boys.

[Dalvius]

A look at WHO's infertillity page on their site shows no definition even close to this.

Do you mean to say that Chessmistress is distorting the facts?

DUN DUN DUNNN

[Lady Scylla]

Do you mean to say that Chessmistress is distorting the facts?

DUN DUN DUNNN

And the final nail in the coffin.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/t ... itions/en/

[Galloism]

With surrogacy women become objects enlisted in auction catalogues of brokers, catalogues on which customers can choose according to the physical and mental features of the women (including the sexual tastes and even the level of education) then such customers can set contracts that should make everybody literally cringe for the absolute loss of dignity that such contracts underlies.

Funny part is this sounds exactly like the catalogs for women in sperm banks.

[Dalvius]

DUN DUN DUNNN

And the final nail in the coffin.

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/t ... itions/en/

You go, girl!