Pope Francis called Monday for a universal ban on the “despicable” practice of surrogate motherhood, as he included the “commercialization” of pregnancy in an annual speech listing threats to global peace and human dignity.
In a foreign policy address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, Francis lamented that 2024 had dawned at a time in history in which peace is “increasingly threatened, weakened and in some part lost.”
Citing Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Israel-Hamas war, migration, climate crises and the “immoral” production of nuclear and conventional weapons, Francis delivered a lengthy laundry list of the ills afflicting humanity and the increasing violation of international humanitarian law that allows them.
But Francis also listed smaller-scale issues that he said were threats to peace and human dignity, including surrogacy. Francis said the life of the unborn child must be protected and not “suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking.”
This is the best summary I could come up with:
ROME (AP) — Pope Francis called Monday for a universal ban on the “despicable” practice of surrogate motherhood, as he included the “commercialization” of pregnancy in an annual speech listing threats to global peace and human dignity.
In a foreign policy address to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See, Francis lamented that 2024 had dawned at a time in history in which peace is “increasingly threatened, weakened and in some part lost.”
“I consider despicable the practice of so-called surrogate motherhood, which represents a grave violation of the dignity of the woman and the child, based on the exploitation of situations of the mother’s material needs,” he said.
Francis has previously voiced the Catholic Church’s opposition to what he has called “uterus for rent,” and some European countries prohibit it, including Spain and Italy.
It marked an unusual break with Francis’ usual tendency to spare Moscow direct, public blame for the invasion when expressing solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
He called for an immediate cease-fire, including in Lebanon, the liberation of hostages held in Gaza, and reiterated the Holy See’s position seeking a two-state solution for Israel and the Palestinians and an internationally guaranteed special status for Jerusalem.
The original article contains 636 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
“Unborn child must be protected and not suppressed or turned into an object of trafficking”.
Until he is born that is, right?
Religion once again tackling the important issues…
I am no religious expert, but going by what I remember from church, Jesus was sent here for all of us, so wouldn’t that make the Virgin Mary basically a surrogate?
Technically, but remember that Mary didn’t consent or even know what was happening. Jesus was a rape baby…
@Bonehead Luke 1:38 “'I am the Lord’s servant, Mary answered. ‘May your word to me be fulfilled.’ Then the angel left her.” / Luke 1:46-48 “And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has been mindful of the humble state of his servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed,”
Does not sound like she didn’t know what was going on, or that she didn’t consent…
So you’re just going to accept the story from some dude that wrote it years later?
Luke rewrote Matthew and cleaned it up. Here is what Matt wrote
This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about[d]: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
Matthew chapter 1:18-19
No consent given.
Jesus was sent here for all of us
Sure let’s check the Bible
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
Matthew 15:24
The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
Mark 13:10-11
Uh oh. It seems like Jesus wasnt sent for everyone only for a small group of loyal followers from one ethnic group.
I can kind of see the angle with turning kids into a commodity that only well situated people can afford (if they can’t or don’t want to have one themselves), as it is now.
On the other hand, banning the practice is impractical, intruding on personal choices, and most of all, cruel to couples who can’t conceive a child themselves, be it because of infertility or because they are a non-heterosexual couple.
But then there is also the argument to be made that people should adopt already existing kids instead. Any child that has to grow up in foster care or generally without a loving home is one too many.
Not sure where i stand on this myself actually. People should be allowed free choice of course, but that inevitably leads to this bias towards the rich.
No normal or even poor couple, no matter how good parents they would be, could afford or convince a surrogate mother to bear their child. And allowing this to be a privilege for the rich seems mega fucked.
I don’t think the objection is to the concept of surrogacy as much as it the commerical aspect of it. Kind of like how if it was legal to sell your own organs the poor might be forced by society to do so.
I don’t think he’d have an issue of doing it as a favor based on the wording.
Some quick info on adoption: at least where I live, there aren’t a giant list of babies waiting for someone to adopt them. There are lots of kids (usually age 5+) who need loving homes, but have mental and/or physical special needs, or behavioral issues (due to abuse, etc).
Most people who want to adopt a baby are going to be on a waiting list for a year or more (depending on how selective they are). And this is also cost-prohibitive (anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000, in my area) unless you don’t need an agency.
Yup. In the US, I think there are something like 20 potential adoptive parents qualified for every infant that comes through the private and semi-private systems. There is literally zero “saving” that goes in with healthy infant adoption. If people just don’t want to be pregnant or have some genetic issues (official or not) that they’d rather not pass on, then there’s a place for it (though I wish it were regulate much, much better), but they need to understand that it’s for their own benefit and to just get in line.
We don’t ban things because they’re not affordable enough. We would ban quite a lot of medicine if that were so. This is religious horseshit trying to sweeten itself with a populist angle.
Im not saying we should ban it, I’m saying we should find a way so not rich people have access too. Perhaps introduce some restrictions to that effect, but ultimately it is individual choice.
Also, I am from one of the myriad of places outside the United States that has socialized healthcare.
For the most part we don’t have medicine or treatments that people need to be able to afford. Insurance will cover anything.
Have you ever considered that the high expense of paying someone to be pregnant on your behalf pays a great deal of cash to potentially poor women? Just because rich people are the ones paying for it doesn’t mean they are the only ones that benefit from it. I’d like to imagine a public healthcare system that will pay for the procedure if you can convince a friend or relative to carry the baby for you. That’s conceivable to me. But being pregnant is 9 months of hard work and has health risks. Even if we can imagine making surrogacy available to all, it’s hard to imagine making surrogates easily available to all. I say if you have the wealth to make this a job for someone, there’s nothing wrong with that. There are plenty of women in the world who have very healthy bodies and can tolerate a pregnancy well who don’t have high paying professional skills.
So while we wait for the perfect egalitarian world to arrive where wealth has no meaning and everything is equally available to all, should we ban this? That’s the only question, really.
I think choosing surrogacy over adoption says something about a person character. To me it says you care more about your genes than the child. And then you have pieces of shit like this russian oligarchs young wife.
I admit that I may be ignorant to parts adoption vs surrogacy, but I don’t like what I have seen online.
Wow so incredibly judgy.
Like a lot of people who know nothing about the issue, you assume that adoption is easily available without limit and the reality is more complex. Unless you are taking special needs children into your home to care for them, don’t go around telling people they have an obligation to adopt.
I know a couple who used surrogacy because she had a health issue that would make pregnancy high risk for her. If you want to get in her face and say she is not allowed to use technology to make a decision that everyone else gets to make, and she’s a bad person unless she adopts, that’s your fever dream to enjoy on your own.
Banning the technology outright because of what a Russian oligarch does with it? Insane.
Sounds to me like there is a class of people that shouldn’t continue to hold position. Even Jesus said the rich where detestable. “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then for a rich man to enter heaven.” Once ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ aren’t a viable distinction anymore, the problem you describe is resolved. Not that other problems wouldn’t be present, just saying some change is needed.
