The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Ors Might]

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.

They aren't buying the kid. They're compensating the surrogate for the services rendered. One of those services is giving up her rights as the child's parental guardian so that the couple may adopt them. Simple, yes?

[Galloism]

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.

So, given sperm banks and doctors specializing in fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization are specifically using their organs (brains, hands, etc) to specifically and purposefully produce a human being, how do you get them to work for free?

[Olerand]

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 their "Produce.")

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

[Olerand]

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.

They aren't buying the kid. They're compensating the surrogate for the services rendered. One of those services is giving up her rights as the child's parental guardian so that the couple may adopt them. Simple, yes?

They're buying the kid, along with the womb. They bought the woman's womb, which is already unethical, and used it to produce a human being for financial compensation.

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.

So, given sperm banks and doctors specializing in fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization are specifically using their organs (brains, hands, etc) to specifically and purposefully produce a human being, how do you get them to work for free?

... Who works for free? Sperm donors? Who's working for free here? What?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Right.

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

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

Which is a service.

[Sanctissima]

Right.

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

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

You aren't actually buying the womb, it's more like paying rent for a third party.

I don't understand why this practice is problematic.

[Olerand]

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

Which is a service.

You bought a product, it fulfilled its job. The womb, not the woman's work, is what's vital to this transaction. A woman incapable of conceiving has nothing to offer you. You need a womb, a human organ.

[Galloism]

They aren't buying the kid. They're compensating the surrogate for the services rendered. One of those services is giving up her rights as the child's parental guardian so that the couple may adopt them. Simple, yes?

They're buying the kid, along with the womb. They bought the woman's womb, which is already unethical, and used it to produce a human being for financial compensation.

So, given sperm banks and doctors specializing in fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization are specifically using their organs (brains, hands, etc) to specifically and purposefully produce a human being, how do you get them to work for free?

... Who works for free? Sperm donors? Who's working for free here? What?

Sperm donors and doctors. You said the dilineation was that using your organs to produce a living human CANNOT be compensated.

Since sperm donors and fertility doctors do this on a literal daily basis, I'm wondering how France gets them to work for free, since, according to YOUR logic, they can't be compensated.

[Olerand]

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

You aren't actually buying the womb, it's more like paying rent for a third party.

I don't understand why this practice is problematic.

You're paying rent for another human being's organ. I don't understand how this idea isn't sticking.

[New haven america]

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?

1. 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. 2.She has nothing to offer you, and will have no interaction with you, past her womb and the nine months of her pregnancy.
3. 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.

1. No you're not, you investing in a service offered by a willing and consenting individual.
2. Yes she does, she offers the ability to grow your kid if you're wife or husband can't do it naturally (btw, most surrogates carry In Vetro children, so it's not the surrogates child, it's the parent's)
3. But by you're logic, me offering my hands so that my boss can make more money, and I can hope to get a cut of the profit, makes me an exploited individual/servant.

[Olerand]

They're buying the kid, along with the womb. They bought the woman's womb, which is already unethical, and used it to produce a human being for financial compensation.


... Who works for free? Sperm donors? Who's working for free here? What?

Sperm donors and doctors. You said the dilineation was that using your organs to produce a living human CANNOT be compensated.

Since sperm donors and fertility doctors do this on a literal daily basis, I'm wondering how France gets them to work for free, since, according to YOUR logic, they can't be compensated.

Sperm are not people, nor organs. And fertility doctors take that which is not people, nor organs (sperm), and make a child to then inject into its mother's womb. Is this what you're asking?

[New haven america]

Right.

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

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

No, you're paying for their services, you're not paying for their body, you're paying for what they have to go through for 9 months to carry your child.

[Sanctissima]

You aren't actually buying the womb, it's more like paying rent for a third party.

I don't understand why this practice is problematic.

You're paying rent for another human being's organ. I don't understand how this idea isn't sticking.

For the temporary use of it, yes. Which is something the woman is, in the paradigm most people use for this sort of thing, contractually agreeing to. It's not like people are arguing in favour of forcing women to do this.

[Galloism]

Sperm donors and doctors. You said the dilineation was that using your organs to produce a living human CANNOT be compensated.

Since sperm donors and fertility doctors do this on a literal daily basis, I'm wondering how France gets them to work for free, since, according to YOUR logic, they can't be compensated.

Sperm are not people, nor organs. And fertility doctors take that which is not people, nor organs (sperm), and make a child to then inject into its mother's womb. Is this what you're asking?

They are specifically using their organs to produce a human, yes. You will not hire them without the requisite testicles or hands. How do you get them to work for free?

[Olerand]

1. 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. 2.She has nothing to offer you, and will have no interaction with you, past her womb and the nine months of her pregnancy.
3. 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.

1. No you're not, you investing in a service offered by a willing and consenting individual. 2. Yes she does, she offers the ability to grow your kid if you're wife or husband can't do it naturally (btw, most surrogates carry In Vetro children, so it's not the surrogates child, it's the parent's)
3. But by you're logic, me offering my hands so that my boss can make more money, and I can hope to get a cut of the profit, makes me an exploited individual/servant.

1- You're buying a product, a human organ.
2- A woman has nothing to give you, you're buying a womb. A sterile woman is useless to you because what you really want in this process is the womb, the organ. I am also aware that the vast majority of surrogates don't give up their own children, that was another point, which is financial reward for producing a human being, and is not related to the point about the sale and purchase of the womb.
3- In the Marxist way, yes. But in what we're discussing here, no. Your employer is not buying any part of you (unlike buying a womb), he is buying your produce (which cannot occur in the case of a womb's produce). Depending on the conditions in which you exert your labor, you may be exploited yes. If you work in a sweatshop, you are being exploited.

[Olerand]

Your paying for their womb. They're not offering you any services beyond carrying your child in their uterus and feeding it for nine months to then push it out. That's not a service, you're buying their womb.

No, you're paying for their services, you're not paying for their body, you're paying for what they have to go through for 9 months to carry your child.

No, you're paying for the womb

Her "services" are her producing her product, but without you buying her womb, none of this can happen. The purchase of the womb is the fundamental beginning. You don't need any woman, you need a woman with a fertile womb. What you need is a womb.

Sperm are not people, nor organs. And fertility doctors take that which is not people, nor organs (sperm), and make a child to then inject into its mother's womb. Is this what you're asking?

They are specifically using their organs to produce a human, yes. You will not hire them without the requisite testicles or hands. How do you get them to work for free?

A sperm? Semen is not people.

[New haven america]

1. No you're not, you investing in a service offered by a willing and consenting individual. 2. Yes she does, she offers the ability to grow your kid if you're wife or husband can't do it naturally (btw, most surrogates carry In Vetro children, so it's not the surrogates child, it's the parent's)
3. But by you're logic, me offering my hands so that my boss can make more money, and I can hope to get a cut of the profit, makes me an exploited individual/servant.

1- You're buying a product, a human organ.
2- A woman has nothing to give you, you're buying a womb. A sterile woman is useless to you because what you really want in this process is the womb, the organ. I am also aware that the vast majority of surrogates don't give up their own children, that was another point, which is financial reward for producing a human being, and is not related to the point about the sale and purchase of the womb.
3- In the Marxist way, yes. But in what we're discussing here, no. Your employer is not buying any part of you (unlike buying a womb), he is buying your produce (which cannot occur in the case of a womb's produce). Depending on the conditions in which you exert your labor, you may be exploited yes. If you work in a sweatshop, you are being exploited.

1. No, you're compensating someone for their services. you're not buying their body, you're paying them for their services.
2. No, you're paying for someone's services.
3. No, by you're logic I am an extorted individual by using my own body to help someone gain a greater reward.

[Galloism]

No, you're paying for their services, you're not paying for their body, you're paying for what they have to go through for 9 months to carry your child.

No, you're paying for the womb

Her "services" are her producing her product, but without you buying her womb, none of this can happen. The purchase of the womb is the fundamental beginning. You don't need any woman, you need a woman with a fertile womb. What you need is a womb.

They are specifically using their organs to produce a human, yes. You will not hire them without the requisite testicles or hands. How do you get them to work for free?

A sperm? Semen is not people.

The sperm isn't for the purpose of drinking. It's for producing living people. Try again.

[New haven america]

No, you're paying for their services, you're not paying for their body, you're paying for what they have to go through for 9 months to carry your child.

No, you're paying for the womb

Her "services" are her producing her product, but without you buying her womb, none of this can happen. The purchase of the womb is the fundamental beginning. You don't need any woman, you need a woman with a fertile womb. What you need is a womb.

No, you're compensating her for her service.

No, her service is incubating your product for 9 months, not her product, your product. Actually, you can't use just any women, you need a consenting women who passes several health regulations. You wouldn't want a crack addict to be you're kid's surrogate, would you?

[Olerand]

1- You're buying a product, a human organ.
2- A woman has nothing to give you, you're buying a womb. A sterile woman is useless to you because what you really want in this process is the womb, the organ. I am also aware that the vast majority of surrogates don't give up their own children, that was another point, which is financial reward for producing a human being, and is not related to the point about the sale and purchase of the womb.
3- In the Marxist way, yes. But in what we're discussing here, no. Your employer is not buying any part of you (unlike buying a womb), he is buying your produce (which cannot occur in the case of a womb's produce). Depending on the conditions in which you exert your labor, you may be exploited yes. If you work in a sweatshop, you are being exploited.

1. No, you're compensating someone for their services. you're not buying their body, you're paying them for their services.
2. No, you're paying for someone's services.
3. No, by you're logic I am an extorted individual by using my own body to help someone gain a greater reward.

1- The services are irrelevant besides the products you are purchasing, which are the womb and the baby. You don't need services, you need produce. A womb to produce a baby.
2- No, you're buying their womb
3- Uh... Not what I argued. I argued that you cannot buy another human being's body-parts and its human produce, such as their womb. No one can buy your hands. They can buy what your hands make which are not human. This is not what I argued at all. I don't understand how arguing that you cannot buy organs is becoming such a convoluted conversation.

No, you're paying for the womb

Her "services" are her producing her product, but without you buying her womb, none of this can happen. The purchase of the womb is the fundamental beginning. You don't need any woman, you need a woman with a fertile womb. What you need is a womb.


A sperm? Semen is not people.

The sperm isn't for the purpose of drinking. It's for producing living people. Try again.

What are you talking about? Try what again? The sperm is not human, nor an organ. You may purchase it. It may be used to then produce a human being in a womb not being financially rewarded for making that human being. What you purchase then is the sperm (not human or an organ), and the services of the doctor (who injects it into you). No organs nor humans are being bought. Is this a difficult concept to understand?

[Olerand]

No, you're paying for the womb

Her "services" are her producing her product, but without you buying her womb, none of this can happen. The purchase of the womb is the fundamental beginning. You don't need any woman, you need a woman with a fertile womb. What you need is a womb.

No, you're compensating her for her service.

No, her service is incubating your product for 9 months, not her product, your product. Actually, you can't use just any women, you need a consenting women who passes several health regulations. You wouldn't want a crack addict to be you're kid's surrogate, would you?

Clearly, we have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly it is that you need here. I don't see this as buying services, you don't need a woman, any woman, for this. You need a womb. If a womb can exist separate from a woman, you could, and would, very well use that. The woman's services are irrelevant, besides producing that which you are then purchasing.

[New haven america]

1. No, you're compensating someone for their services. you're not buying their body, you're paying them for their services.
2. No, you're paying for someone's services.
3. No, by you're logic I am an extorted individual by using my own body to help someone gain a greater reward.

1- The services are irrelevant besides the products you are purchasing, which are the womb and the baby. You don't need services, you need produce. A womb to produce a baby.
3- Uh... Not what I argued. I argued that you cannot buy another human being's body-parts and its human produce, such as their womb. No one can buy your hands. They can buy what your hands make which are not human. This is not what I argued at all. I don't understand how arguing that you cannot buy organs is becoming such a convoluted conversation.

1. No, their service is incubating and keeping your product safe for 9 months, and for that, you pay them compensation.
2. Gonna ignore that because of the
3. No, I am offering the services of my hands, which makes me an exploited individual. Your logic, not mine.

[New haven america]

No, you're compensating her for her service.

No, her service is incubating your product for 9 months, not her product, your product. Actually, you can't use just any women, you need a consenting women who passes several health regulations. You wouldn't want a crack addict to be you're kid's surrogate, would you?

Clearly, we have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly it is that you need here. I don't see this as buying services, you don't need a woman, any woman, for this. You need a womb. If a womb can exist separate from a woman, you could, and would, very well use that. The woman's services are irrelevant, besides producing that which you are then purchasing.

Yes, you do need a women, considering they're the only things that can currently incubate human embryos into children. You're compensating someone for that service which they are providing.

[Olerand]

1- The services are irrelevant besides the products you are purchasing, which are the womb and the baby. You don't need services, you need produce. A womb to produce a baby.
3- Uh... Not what I argued. I argued that you cannot buy another human being's body-parts and its human produce, such as their womb. No one can buy your hands. They can buy what your hands make which are not human. This is not what I argued at all. I don't understand how arguing that you cannot buy organs is becoming such a convoluted conversation.

1. No, their service is incubating and keeping your product safe for 9 months, and for that, you pay them compensation.
2. Gonna ignore that because of the
3. No, I am offering the services of my hands, which makes me an exploited individual. Your logic, not mine.

1- Which is the act of production.
3- I never, anywhere, argued that what your hands produce and which is not human cannot be sold and you producing it is exploitation. In fact, in regards to exploitation, I specifically stated that despite individual choices, I specify that the system is exploitative. That's where exploitation comes from in this argument. The act of production is not itself, inherently, "exploitation". Purchasing a poor woman's organ is, as part of an exploitative system of organ purchasing. Your employer does not purchase your hand, he purchases its non-human produce. No human may purchase another human or their organ. You may not purchase a poor man's kidney, as that would be part of an exploitative system, regardless of if the poor man "wants" to sell you his kidney.

[Galloism]

1. No, you're compensating someone for their services. you're not buying their body, you're paying them for their services.
2. No, you're paying for someone's services.
3. No, by you're logic I am an extorted individual by using my own body to help someone gain a greater reward.

1- The services are irrelevant besides the products you are purchasing, which are the womb and the baby. You don't need services, you need produce. A womb to produce a baby.
2- No, you're buying their womb
3- Uh... Not what I argued. I argued that you cannot buy another human being's body-parts and its human produce, such as their womb. No one can buy your hands. They can buy what your hands make which are not human. This is not what I argued at all. I don't understand how arguing that you cannot buy organs is becoming such a convoluted conversation.

The sperm isn't for the purpose of drinking. It's for producing living people. Try again.

What are you talking about? Try what again? The sperm is not human, nor an organ. You may purchase it. It may be used to then produce a human being in a womb not being financially rewarded for making that human being. What you purchase then is the sperm (not human or an organ), and the services of the doctor (who injects it into you). No organs nor humans are being bought. Is this a difficult concept to understand?

Yes, because it is a fundamentally inconsistent concept.

A sperm is produced by an organ (the testes) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It requires the use of both hands and an organ that must work to be purchased. It will not be purchased without peak functioning testes and adequately functioning hands.

A fetus is produced by an organ (the womb) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It will not be purchased without an adequately functioning womb, and hands are helpful too.

A fetus is produced by an organ (doctor's hands/brain) over a period of months for the purpose of producing a living human baby. It will not be purchased without adequately functioning brains or hands.

The middle one is organ trafficking but the others aren't. For some reason.