(Sweden) 'Women's bodies aren't simply containers'

[The Straight Story]

'Women's bodies aren't simply containers'

Lifting Sweden's ban on surrogate motherhood would facilitate the trade in women and children, argue Mia Fahlén of the Swedish Women Doctors Association and Gertrud Åström of the Swedish Women's Lobby.

'Lift Swedish ban on surrogate motherhood' (28 Feb 13)

Sweden's medical ethics council (Statens medicinsk-etiska råd, Smer) wants to allow surrogate motherhood, but in our view its report leaves too many questions unanswered.

Our organizations think that all types of trade in women's bodies and children should be prohibited.

Surrogate motherhood is a serious crime against women's human rights.

To become pregnant and to give birth are among the most dangerous things a fertile woman can go through. Apart from the mortality risk, women can end up suffering preeclamsia, Graves' disease, depression, blood clots, or incontinence, among other serious ailments.

http://www.thelocal.se/46492/20130305/#.UTZehzei2So

[CTyankee]

1. Very thought provoking. Thanks for posting this.

It is nice to hear from a woman-centered society...

[EOTE]

2. I refuse to think of limiting women's choices as being "pro women".

There are many things which are dangerous, yet people choose to go through. If you can choose to endure pregnancy for your own family, why can't you choose to go through it for the family of another? It's only a crime against women's rights if it were forced upon them, and I'm pretty sure that no one is suggesting that.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. I agree with you

Women should be able to choose. We know when we get pregnant there are risks. Hell, we know when we take birth control there are risks. My father likes to use the excuse that some women have clots and strokes to say that it is in the woman's best interest not to take birth control.
We all take risks in everything we do. We should have the freedom to choose what risks we are willing to take.

[SwampG8r]

3. sure they are

containers of awesome!!

[redqueen]

4. I agree it is a violation of human rights.

Is there any country which allows people to sell non-essential organs? I wonder which procedure carries more risk.

[Kurska]

6. Completely disagree, how are you respecting human rights by removing someone's right to choose?

Once a baby leaves the body it is no longer a "organ" that is the difference between this and selling organs. It isn't anyone elses business what a woman does with her body. Yes, that does includes other women who, with the best of intetions, might not approve of what she is doing with it. If you don't like the idea of being a surrogate mother, don't be one.

[roxy1234]

7. I find some of these

Ultra feminist societies to quite sexist against woman. They are so wound up on protecting women that they end up restricting a woman's right to choose to a point they are treated like children.

To become pregnant and to give birth are among the most dangerous things a fertile woman can go through. Apart from the mortality risk, women can end up suffering preeclamsia, Graves' disease, depression, blood clots, or incontinence, among other serious ailments.

I guess by that line of logic they will also ban soldiers are a profession because it is among the most dangerous thing a person can be.

[liberal_at_heart]

10. yes this we must protect the dainty little woman routine is actually anti-woman in my opinion

We are tough enough to decide if we are willing to take on the risk of pregnancy or any other risk for that matter. If they find pregnancy that dangerous why not outlaw it for every woman? Why limit it to surrogacy?

[roxy1234]

13. Yup

The compromise can be a program that informs perspective surrogate mothers on the potential risks but thats it. These woman are adults and they do not need you to hold their hands any longer

[Arcanetrance]

8. I'm not coming down on one side or another but I do have a question.

If a woman is explained and knows the risks and decides she wants to be surrogate how is it a violation. I would understand if it was a forced thing.

[Kurska]

9. Because some people think they know what is best for everyone and want those ideas made law.

Same reason you have a lot of incredibly idiotic laws restricting personal freedom.

[Arcanetrance]

12. See it worries me that some would support this.

I see our side fighting against this same stuff with those who are against abortion.

[LittleBlue]

11. Not a fan of surrogacy

The idea is sickening to me. Selling reproductive rights and babies in contracts is too objectifying to me, like they are a commodity to be traded.

Reducing motherhood and women in general to potential substitute incubators is repulsive.

No offense to anyone on DU who may have gone through the process. I know why people do it, it's just the aspect of trading cash for a woman's reproductive abilities and babies that gets me. There are some things I just can't bring myself to accept in a financial transaction. Would I push for outlawing it? No, because I think women should have freedom over her body without the single opinion from a man like me, even if coerced by a man's money, but it seriously tempts me to hypocrisy.

[redqueen]

14. It's become an industry in India.

Horrifying stuff.

[Kurska]

15. You can find it sickening, but if a woman decides to how can you justify telling them no?

I find the idea of somone controlling the reproductive rights of another far more offensive than surrogacy.

[LittleBlue]

16. You're correct.

I find restricting women more repulsive than surrogacy.

It just seems like they deserve more respect than to be treated this way. Maybe the best way to fight it is to help poor women so that their financial situation isn't so dire that they would feel the need to consider surrogacy.

[liberal_at_heart]

22. you are correct. To solve the problem you find ways to life them out of poverty.

You don't tell them they can't be a surrogate because they are being exploited.

[LadyHawkAZ]

19. I didn't do a surrogacy, but I did place a child for adoption

Pregnancy is work any way you look at it, and when you're giving the child to someone else, you're performing 9 months of free labor for those other people. In my case, it was also out of economic need, because I couldn't afford to keep the baby. Legally, they could not reimburse me for the 5 months of work I put in after the contract was signed: they could pay medical expenses and half my living expenses, but that was it. That pissed me off no end: it was a bad pregnancy and I was too sick to work through after my third month. So I guess it depends on how you look at it. Some people do object to payment because they view it as selling babies; I objected to not being paid because it was labor I did with my body for someone else that I wasn't being reimbursed for, and that prevented me from working anywhere else.

[bemildred]

17. Tricky problem.

I feel that if the woman is not compelled, there is no problem; but since women can easily be compelled by economic need (I mean that is most of human history, eh?) then there is a problem. So I think that to allow this to proceed as an economic transaction, one first needs to be assured that the prospective mother is not being compelled by economic need. And I think that problem is what the OP is aiming at.

[LadyHawkAZ]

18. Pregnancy is just as dangerous when it's not being paid for

based on their arguments, they would have to criminalize all pregnancy as a violation of human rights. If a woman can make a choice in one situation, why can't they make it in the other too?

For a supposedly equality-oriented country, Sweden seems to have gotten the idea somewhere that their women are all pretty mindless creatures, and that the best way to free them from their patriarchal chains is to make laws telling them what to do with their ladybits. Because that's totally opposite what a patriarchy does, right?

[me b zola]

20. Reproductive exploitation

What a couple of posters in this thread are calling reproductive rights, are really advocating for reproductive exploitation.

Fertile, poor and female? Its a billion dollar industry where the fertile women are almost never compensated for a middle-man to $ell your fertility. Promises made are almost never kept, and the fertile woman has no idea of just how deeply this will effect the rest of her life.

[redqueen]

21. [phone]

Very well said.

[Tien1985]

23. Huh

I'm not sure what to think here. I can definitely see how poor women could be exploited into this, on the other hand, I have had several female friends offer to be a surrogate mother if my partner and I wanted a baby--no money even discussed. (We'd rather adopt if we choose to raise another child) but the gesture was heartwarming and incredibly generous.

In general, I'm against telling someone what they can and can't do with their own body, but I do understand there are times when exploitation and power balance come into play.