The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Galloism]

Fine. We're getting off topic anyway. I still fail to see how being hired to carry a child for nine months is equivalent to slavery.

You are selling yourself and your organs. But clearly we have very different worldviews, so no point in pursuing this further.

So does a coal miner.

Or literally any profession ever.

[Olerand]

You are selling yourself and your organs. But clearly we have very different worldviews, so no point in pursuing this further.

So does a coal miner.

Or literally any profession ever.

They sell their labor. It is an unfortunate byproduct that their health is affected. And that's why Europe is moving away from coal, and social and workplace health standards exist.

[Ors Might]

Fine. We're getting off topic anyway. I still fail to see how being hired to carry a child for nine months is equivalent to slavery.

You are selling yourself and your organs. But clearly we have very different worldviews, so no point in pursuing this further.

What kind of surrogacy contracts did you have in Europe before it was made illegal? As far as I'm aware here in the US you don't become the property of the couple you're surrogating for and you don't literally sell your womb. You just agree to get pregnant on their behalf.

[New haven america]

1. Yes. Jenna Jameson for example, started when she was 18 and kept going until she was in her 30's-40's because she loved sex and showing herself off, and she's not a unique case.
2. As stated before, you're being close minded. How is it exploitative if the people make the choice to do it? (Oh, and btw, there exists a lot of legal and medical laws and practices behind surrogacy, so chances are that if someone decided to do it because they had no other job option, they wouldn't be able to meet the surrogacy requirements to begin with).
3. I agree, the should be legalized, unionized, and regulated.

1- I don't know her, but I've already written out my argument on individual choices.

2- Because the system is exploitative. Individuals can, in a minority of cases, make the choice to enter it voluntarily, but the system itself is exploitative. Most in it are not there by true free will, and those who are there do not legitimize the exploitative practice.
Why not? Are the poor physically incapable of meeting the requirements of being a mother? The popularity of surrogacy (for Europeans at least) using Indian women's wombs does not suggest that India's poor meet the criteria for a well-fed, well-cared for middle class lifestyle.

1. She's a porn star, who likes having sex and found out that she could make money off of it.
2. No it's no, it's heavily controlled and regulated. In the US at least, chances are that poorer individuals aren't as physically healthy as middle or upper middle class people. Actually, most Indians living outside of India tend to be of the Kshatriya class, so they're technically well above the middle class (At least in India).

[Galloism]

So does a coal miner.

Or literally any profession ever.

They sell their labor. It is an unfortunate byproduct that their health is affected. And that's why Europe is moving away from coal, and social and workplace health standards exist.

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

[Ors Might]

They sell their labor. It is an unfortunate byproduct that their health is affected. And that's why Europe is moving away from coal, and social and workplace health standards exist.

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

Tfw working at Taco Bell is slavery.

[Galloism]

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

Tfw working at Taco Bell is slavery.

I mean, that is the logical result of the argument.

[Olerand]

You are selling yourself and your organs. But clearly we have very different worldviews, so no point in pursuing this further.

What kind of surrogacy contracts did you have in Europe before it was made illegal? As far as I'm aware here in the US you don't become the property of the couple you're surrogating for and you don't literally sell your womb. You just agree to get pregnant on their behalf.

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.

1- I don't know her, but I've already written out my argument on individual choices.

2- Because the system is exploitative. Individuals can, in a minority of cases, make the choice to enter it voluntarily, but the system itself is exploitative. Most in it are not there by true free will, and those who are there do not legitimize the exploitative practice.
Why not? Are the poor physically incapable of meeting the requirements of being a mother? The popularity of surrogacy (for Europeans at least) using Indian women's wombs does not suggest that India's poor meet the criteria for a well-fed, well-cared for middle class lifestyle.

1. She's a porn star, who likes having sex and found out that she could make money off of it.
2. No it's no, it's heavily controlled and regulated. In the US at least, chances are that poorer individuals aren't as physically healthy as middle or upper middle class people. Actually, most Indians living outside of India tend to be of the Kshatriya class, so they're technically well above the middle class (At least in India).

I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.

They sell their labor. It is an unfortunate byproduct that their health is affected. And that's why Europe is moving away from coal, and social and workplace health standards exist.

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

[Ors Might]

Tfw working at Taco Bell is slavery.

I mean, that is the logical result of the argument.

Arbeit Macht Fre my ass

[Galloism]

What kind of surrogacy contracts did you have in Europe before it was made illegal? As far as I'm aware here in the US you don't become the property of the couple you're surrogating for and you don't literally sell your womb. You just agree to get pregnant on their behalf.

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.

1. She's a porn star, who likes having sex and found out that she could make money off of it.
2. No it's no, it's heavily controlled and regulated. In the US at least, chances are that poorer individuals aren't as physically healthy as middle or upper middle class people. Actually, most Indians living outside of India tend to be of the Kshatriya class, so they're technically well above the middle class (At least in India).

I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

Indeed. You - and most people - are inconsistent.

Leasing your womb is slavery. Leasing your hands isn't. Leasing your brain isn't. Leasing your muscles isn't.

Basically, the womb is a special snowflake of organs, and leasing it, and only it, is slavery.

[Olerand]

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.


I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.


That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

Indeed. You - and most people - are inconsistent.

Leasing your womb is slavery. Leasing your hands isn't. Leasing your brain isn't. Leasing your muscles isn't.

Basically, the womb is a special snowflake of organs, and leasing it, and only it, is slavery.

It is thus grand to be uniquely superior. Unfortunately, we, the rest of humanity, are mere mortals, shackled to our inferiority.

Leasing all of you is. Leasing your labor, is not. Your hands are not your employer's property, what your hands make are the company's property. Is this... An innovative concept in America? Do you believe your employer owns your physical embodiment because you work for them? I know worker's rights are shit in the Anglo world, but this truly extreme.

Um... Not sure who's argument that is. Not sure where you're getting the idea that your employer owns any part of your body either, but whatever.

[Ors Might]

What kind of surrogacy contracts did you have in Europe before it was made illegal? As far as I'm aware here in the US you don't become the property of the couple you're surrogating for and you don't literally sell your womb. You just agree to get pregnant on their behalf.

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.

1. She's a porn star, who likes having sex and found out that she could make money off of it.
2. No it's no, it's heavily controlled and regulated. In the US at least, chances are that poorer individuals aren't as physically healthy as middle or upper middle class people. Actually, most Indians living outside of India tend to be of the Kshatriya class, so they're technically well above the middle class (At least in India).

I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

I don't know who told you that the buyers are buying the womb but they're wrong. Very, very wrong. What they're buying is the time and effort the surrogate puts into the pregnancy and her relinquishing of the rights to the newborn produced by said pregnancy.

[Galloism]

Leasing all of you is. Leasing your labor, is not. Your hands are not your employer's property, what your hands make are the company's property.

What do you think the womb does? Do the parents buying surrogacy services keep the womb afterwards as a trophy?

Because, using your newly stated logic the womb is not the employer's property. What the womb makes is the employers property (although I am loathe to refer to a child as 'property').

In short, if your logic you used now applies, surrogacy involves purchasing no organs, merely the use thereof to create something else. If we use your previous logic, then all labor involves leasing organs.

Pick one.

[New haven america]

What kind of surrogacy contracts did you have in Europe before it was made illegal? As far as I'm aware here in the US you don't become the property of the couple you're surrogating for and you don't literally sell your womb. You just agree to get pregnant on their behalf.

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.

1. She's a porn star, who likes having sex and found out that she could make money off of it.
2. No it's no, it's heavily controlled and regulated. In the US at least, chances are that poorer individuals aren't as physically healthy as middle or upper middle class people. Actually, most Indians living outside of India tend to be of the Kshatriya class, so they're technically well above the middle class (At least in India).

I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.

Selling your labor IS selling the use of your organs, including, but not limited to, brain, skeleton, ligaments, muscular system, lungs, spinal cord, eyes, ears, and skin.

That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

Olerand, you seem to be confused or non-understanding about what surrogacy actually is. I recommend you read or watch some North American (Canadian and American specifically), UK, etc... published articles and videos, as well as look into what it takes to be a surrogate, and what they actually go through.

Right now you're just spouting wrong or non-comparable information and arguments.

[Olerand]

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.


I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.


That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

I don't know who told you that the buyers are buying the womb but they're wrong. Very, very wrong. What they're buying is the time and effort the surrogate puts into the pregnancy and her relinquishing of the rights to the newborn produced by said pregnancy.

What they're buying is the womb. Not a nanny, not a wet nurse, not a midwife, but a womb. The woman's services, without her literally offering her womb, are not needed.

Leasing all of you is. Leasing your labor, is not. Your hands are not your employer's property, what your hands make are the company's property.

What do you think the womb does? Do the parents buying surrogacy services keep the womb afterwards as a trophy?

Because, using your newly stated logic the womb is not the employer's property. What the womb makes is the employers property (although I am loathe to refer to a child as 'property').

In short, if your logic you used now applies, surrogacy involves purchasing no organs, merely the use thereof to create something else. If we use your previous logic, then all labor involves leasing organs.

Pick one.

Easy, your womb, and its produce, are not something you can sell. So in this case, neither the hand, nor its produce are for sale. Which is consistent with the idea that your hands are not owned by your employer (neither is the womb), and considering as the womb's product is another human being (unlike a hand making a shoe), its product is not for sale either.

[Olerand]

All of Europe? I don't know. When the practice in France came to public attention, the Court of Cassation ruled it illegal in 1991, followed by a law that forbade it explicitly in 1994.

Indeed you don't. But your womb is theirs to rent out. We don't believe you can purchase or sell organs.


I don't know enough to argue in regards to what's happening specifically in America. I'm elaborating on surrogacy as a whole, as experienced everywhere.
From what we see of it, I don't see the Indian poor selling out their wombs complying with rigorous health standards or whatever.


That's... A very innovative way of looking at labor, I guess. Not how... Any law I believe sees it, nor do I, nor do most people, I think. But that's interesting.

Olerand, you seem to be confused or non-understanding about what surrogacy actually is. I recommend you read or watch some North American (Canadian and American specifically), UK, etc... published articles and videos, as well as look into what it takes to be a surrogate, and what they actually go through.

Right now you're just spouting wrong or non-comparable information and arguments.

I don't know, nor do I care, about how you practice surrogacy. What I explain is why surrogacy is banned in many European countries (including my own), and what are the views that drive those bans, and how we know it and experience it. I'm not applying this to America, which I am fully aware is one step away from allowing indentured servitude again if one can argue that the servants "really want it".

[New haven america]

Olerand, you seem to be confused or non-understanding about what surrogacy actually is. I recommend you read or watch some North American (Canadian and American specifically), UK, etc... published articles and videos, as well as look into what it takes to be a surrogate, and what they actually go through.

Right now you're just spouting wrong or non-comparable information and arguments.

I don't know, nor do I care, about how you practice surrogacy. What I explain is why surrogacy is banned in many European countries (including my own), and what are the views that drive those bans, and how we know it and experience it. I'm not applying this to America, which I am fully aware is one step away from allowing indentured servitude again if one can argue that the servants "really want it".

So you admit that you're being ethnocentric and close minded when it comes to this subject?

[Galloism]

I don't know who told you that the buyers are buying the womb but they're wrong. Very, very wrong. What they're buying is the time and effort the surrogate puts into the pregnancy and her relinquishing of the rights to the newborn produced by said pregnancy.

What they're buying is the womb. Not a nanny, not a wet nurse, not a midwife, but a womb. The woman's services, without her literally offering her womb, are not needed.

What do you think the womb does? Do the parents buying surrogacy services keep the womb afterwards as a trophy?

Because, using your newly stated logic the womb is not the employer's property. What the womb makes is the employers property (although I am loathe to refer to a child as 'property').

In short, if your logic you used now applies, surrogacy involves purchasing no organs, merely the use thereof to create something else. If we use your previous logic, then all labor involves leasing organs.

Pick one.

Easy, your womb, and its produce, are not something you can sell. So in this case, neither the hand, nor it's produce are for sale.

So I can't be paid to make something with my hands? Really?

So we're back to labor is slavery.

Which is consistent with the idea that your hands are not owned by your employer (neither is the womb), and considering as the womb's product is another human being (unlike a hand making a shoe), its product is not for sale either.

You're trying to handwave away the lack of discrepancy. It won't work.

If you make something with your womb that belongs to someone else and that's slavery, then if you make something with your hands that belongs to someone else it's slavery.

If making something with your hands that belongs to someone else is not slavery, then making something with your womb that belongs to someone else is not slavery.

There's nothing special about a womb compared with hands.

[Olerand]

What they're buying is the womb. Not a nanny, not a wet nurse, not a midwife, but a womb. The woman's services, without her literally offering her womb, are not needed.


Easy, your womb, and its produce, are not something you can sell. So in this case, neither the hand, nor it's produce are for sale.

So I can't be paid to make something with my hands? Really?

So we're back to labor is slavery.

Which is consistent with the idea that your hands are not owned by your employer (neither is the womb), and considering as the womb's product is another human being (unlike a hand making a shoe), its product is not for sale either.

You're trying to handwave away the lack of discrepancy. It won't work.

If you make something with your womb that belongs to someone else and that's slavery, then if you make something with your hands that belongs to someone else it's slavery.

If making something with your hands that belongs to someone else is not slavery, then making something with your womb that belongs to someone else is not slavery.

There's nothing special about a womb compared with hands.

Why do you keep making this comparison? Your hand is not for sale. Your hand's non-human produce is. Your womb is not for sale. Your womb's human product isn't either.

I didn't say either are slavery, I compared selling yourself and your organs to indentured servitude and slavery. You say labor is akin to slavery, with a definition of labor that I have never seen before, covering not only what your hand produces (the normal person's definition) but also your hand, your brain, your eyes, your heart themselves. I don't know where this idea, that I have never seen before, is coming from.

Again, neither your hand, nor your womb, belong to anyone else. Your hand can, however, produce non-human produce and they can belong to someone else. A womb's produce is human, and cannot "belong" to someone else.

[Olerand]

I don't know, nor do I care, about how you practice surrogacy. What I explain is why surrogacy is banned in many European countries (including my own), and what are the views that drive those bans, and how we know it and experience it. I'm not applying this to America, which I am fully aware is one step away from allowing indentured servitude again if one can argue that the servants "really want it".

So you admit that you're being ethnocentric and close minded when it comes to this subject?

Uh... I don't care about being any of that. I've explained what the philosophical objections are to surrogacy in most of Europe. I don't care if I'm being ethnocentric and "close-minded", I don't see being open-minded to what I believe is a violation of a woman's rights as a plus. I'm explaining why surrogacy is banned, and why I (and others) believe it should remain so. If India, or America, or Russia disagree, that's not my point at all.

[Galloism]

So I can't be paid to make something with my hands? Really?

So we're back to labor is slavery.


You're trying to handwave away the lack of discrepancy. It won't work.

If you make something with your womb that belongs to someone else and that's slavery, then if you make something with your hands that belongs to someone else it's slavery.

If making something with your hands that belongs to someone else is not slavery, then making something with your womb that belongs to someone else is not slavery.

There's nothing special about a womb compared with hands.

Why do you keep making this comparison? Your hand is not for sale. Your hand's non-human produce is. Your womb is not for sale. Your womb's human product isn't either.

So, your argument is that if a person uses their labor to produce a human, they can't be compensated for it? I just want to be clear on your logic. I want to make sure that's the dilineation.

Is this correct?

[New haven america]

So you admit that you're being ethnocentric and close minded when it comes to this subject?

Uh... I don't care about being any of that. I've explained what the philosophical objections are to surrogacy in most of Europe. I don't care if I'm being ethnocentric and "close-minded", I don't see being open-minded to what I believe is a violation of a woman's rights as a plus. I'm explaining why surrogacy is banned, and why I (and others) believe it should remain so. If India, or America, or Russia disagree, that's not my point at all.

And that philosophy just so happens to be wrong, both socially and scientifically. You're not buying a womb, you're investing in the services offered by a willing and consenting participant.

I'm gonna borrow from Gallo: shouldn't using my hands (Or my body in general, for that matter) for a job be considered indentured servitude?

[Olerand]

Why do you keep making this comparison? Your hand is not for sale. Your hand's non-human produce is. Your womb is not for sale. Your womb's human product isn't either.

So, your argument is that if a person uses their labor to produce a human, they can't be compensated for it? I just want to be clear on your logic. I want to make sure that's the dilineation.

Is this correct?

No, they cannot. You cannot purchase a human being or their organs. A human, and their organs, are not for sale. A human's non-human produce is for sale. A human's human produce (as per the first point), are not for sale.

[New haven america]

So, your argument is that if a person uses their labor to produce a human, they can't be compensated for it? I just want to be clear on your logic. I want to make sure that's the dilineation.

Is this correct?

No, they cannot. You cannot purchase a human being or their organs. A human, and their organs, are not for sale. A human's non-human produce is for sale. A human's human produce (as per the first point), are not for sale.

Right.

You're paying for their services. (Also, you do know most surrogates are carrying In Vetro children right. So it's not even the surrogates "Produce", it's the parent's.)

[Olerand]

Uh... I don't care about being any of that. I've explained what the philosophical objections are to surrogacy in most of Europe. I don't care if I'm being ethnocentric and "close-minded", I don't see being open-minded to what I believe is a violation of a woman's rights as a plus. I'm explaining why surrogacy is banned, and why I (and others) believe it should remain so. If India, or America, or Russia disagree, that's not my point at all.

And that philosophy just so happens to be wrong, both socially and scientifically. You're not buying a womb, you're investing in the services offered by a willing and consenting participant.

I'm gonna borrow from Gallo: shouldn't using my hands (Or my body in general, for that matter) for a job be considered indentured servitude?

You're buying a poor woman's womb. You're not buying her services, you're buying her womb. She's not a nanny, not a wet nurse, not a midwife. She has nothing to offer you, and will have no interaction with you, past her womb and the nine months of her pregnancy.
And no, it shouldn't, for the exact same reasons I've explained before. Your hands are yours and yours alone, not owned by your employer. Your hand's non-human produce is for sale, and may be your employer's. If you were to be magically capable of making human beings with your hands, they would not be for sale, nor owned by your employer.

I can't believe that I'm explaining this right now.