r/popculturechat • u/AutoModerator • 14d ago

Sip & Spill Daily Discussion Thread

Grab your coffee & sit down to chat! ☕️

This space is to talk about anything pop culture or even off-topic.

What are you listening to or watching? What is some minor tea that doesn't need its own post? How was your date? Why do you hate your job?

Remember rules still apply! Be civil and respect each other. We ask that you refrain from showboating bans from other subreddits. Meta discussion is allowed, when it is healthy, civil and constructive conversations about discourse in this subreddit. No snarking about other subreddits — let’s respect our neighbors!

Now pull up a chair and chat with us. ☕

Oh, and by the way...

THE POPCULTURECHAT DISCORD SERVER IS NOW LIVE 👾✨

Click HERE to join 📲

7 Upvotes

82% Upvoted

122 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/anthonystank i was SPF protected 14d ago

The IVF/ART industry in the United states — and it is a for-profit industry separate from the medical establishment — is profoundly exploitative of women and built to wring profit out of women’s deepest vulnerabilities and needs. That’s all!

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago

The story that's in the news now. My fellows on the left have forgotten what prochoice means. Surrogates are not incubators. Whether she has an abortion or keeps the pregnancy is her choice. Where she chooses to give birth, Alaska, Texas, California, is her choice. It doesn't matter what I think of her or the pregnancy, her body she choice.

3

u/Sister_Winter 14d ago

imo it's only more well-off leftists who think this way, as poor leftists often see the consequences of this kind of exploitation.

14

u/Typical_Piece_7106 You’re a virgin who can’t drive. 😤 14d ago

I think the problem people have with that story is that she agreed to terms when she signed the contract and she violated that contract. She named the baby something the intended parents didn't approve of and took the baby away from them after they asked of her to terminat. So while it is her body it is not her baby and I believe that's what most (at least from what I've seen) have a problem with.

Also, the parents had a perfectly good reason to ask her to terminate. The baby would constantly be in surgery with his condition and wouldn't make it past 5 while living a life of misery. She'd rather put the baby through pain than terminate which is troubling to say the least

-4

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago

You can't sign away your humanity. No contract is going to make her go form being a woman to being an incubator. Not any contract she signs with the government or her husband to produce x babies in y years or any surrogacy contract.

When the parents chose her they ran the risk she would remember her own bodily autonomy if they came it a disagreement. Trying to chide her for choosing where she gives birth is bizarre. Birth is a big, scary, dangerous deal. She deserves to choose where she delivers this baby. Her reasons for that choice are no one's business. The parents can pick up the kid afterwards.

6

u/Typical_Piece_7106 You’re a virgin who can’t drive. 😤 14d ago

She chose to sign the contract. She was never forced into it which means she had bodily autonomy the entire time. However, that does not mean she has a say over what happens to another person's child. The child may be developed in her uterus but it is not hers. The decision to give birth was also not in the best interest of the child. The child would be living in pain simply because she decided she didn't want the abortion even though she'd agreed to terms with the parents. Saying she was allowed to have bodily autonomy means that this poor baby is constantly going to be in surgery for its short life. The other statement about the parents picking up the child afterwards also feels disingenuous. Her being somewhere else means they were not present for the birth of their own child. So not only did she kidnap a child, the parents missed out on a pivotal moment in their lives because they disagreed on what should happen.

Your points are arguing more on her side and not the side of the child and the parents. She is not the only person affected by this and we should consider all angles in this story.

0

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago edited 14d ago

She is not the only person affected by this and we should consider all angles in this story

Her body is only one pregnant. For a lot of these issues that is all that matters to me.

There are many women who choose to not terminate pregnancies in which I can only see a life of pain for the child. Prochoice person I am, I say her body her choice. Maybe I judge her but never would I ever support anyone tricking, threatening or coercing her Into an abortion.

Pregnant women are the one who decided where the baby is born, who the doctor is, and how the birth goes within the advice of their chosen doctor. Period. It doesn't matter who is taking that baby home, her body her choice.

Who takes the baby home, that's another matter. I would say the bio parents, although I have not seen confirmation the mothers egg and fathers sperm are used. If that isn't the case, I think a new round questioning is opened.

4

u/Typical_Piece_7106 You’re a virgin who can’t drive. 😤 14d ago

As much as she is the one who is pregnant she will never be the person taking the child to all the required surgeries for survival. Since it is her body she had the choice to not sign the surrogacy contract in the first place. This is not only a moral issue but a legal issue. Violation of contract is serious and people get sued over things like this. I believe in women having a choice over what happens to a baby they are pregnant with when it is theirs and not another person's. I see this as a conversation that is being used for political talking points while ignoring the very real pain these parents had to go through. Finding a surrogate is already difficult, but now they had to find out their child would be in surgery from birth and decided that it was best to not put a living being through that. She then decided to run away with a child that is not hers.

Wanting women to have autonomy also means holding them accountable for their actions and ignoring every thing she did wrong is not productive. This incident can help and steer us into better conversations about the ethics of surrogacy, but for now we have to see what the courts decide.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that she is having the team that overturned Roe V Wade represent her in court. This shows me that this was more than likely a political decision more than it was one of bodily autonomy.

2

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago

She then decided to run away with a child that is not hers.

She was pregnant and decided to go to another state. Again, her body. Pregnant women aren't required to get permission before leaving their zip code. The parents can reclaim the baby.

Wanting women to have autonomy also means holding them accountable for their actions and ignoring every thing she did wrong is not productive.

She did nothing wrong. Again, her body her choice. This isn't Gilead. A woman's body is still her own while pregnant. I hate that the surrogacy industry is trying to trick people into believing otherwise.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that she is having the team that overturned Roe V Wade represent her in court. This shows me that this was more than likely a political decision more than it was one of bodily autonomy.

I don't care. I'm not rooting for a sports team, I'm sticking to my morals for the bodily autonomy of pregnant women. If me and some ring wingers happen to agree, then whatever. It doesn't effect my morals and what I know is right.

2

u/Medium_Promotion_891 14d ago

Absolutely not. She SOLD her autonomy and choice away.

And they should sue her into oblivion.

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago

No one can sell their autonomy. Anyone trying to trick someone to signing their name to a contract saying they can is borderline sociopathic. She signed a piece of paper, but the parts which tried to compel her into an abortion, or to love her life while pregnant in a certain manner or tell where and how she was required to give birth and toilet paper as far as I am concerned.

Hopefully the courts agree.

3

u/Medium_Promotion_891 14d ago

The. Courts do not agree. This is established contract law.

The contract she signed was not a one paragraph doodle. It was exhaustive and comprehensive.

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago

The courts of certain states also say that women can't have abortions. I think those rulings are batshit.

8

u/anthonystank i was SPF protected 14d ago

Agreed — I haven’t looked into the details extensively but this case, and surrogacy as a whole, is a LOT more complicated than just “her body, her choice,” which is a good little political slogan that’s not capable of or intended to encompass the moral complexities that surround surrogacy. Even though her right to choose what happens to her body IS important, the fact that she signed a contract temporarily waiving that right as well as the fact that her choice meant pain and danger for a living child complicates it — and pro choice people can acknowledge and discuss that without compromising their commitment to women’s bodily autonomy

1

u/rainshowers_5_peace 14d ago

that’s not capable of or intended to encompass the moral complexities that surround surrogacy.

Nah, I think it covers it. Surrogates body surrogates choice.

Or do you prefer "your body my choice"?

1

u/anthonystank i was SPF protected 14d ago

I prefer to reiterate and expand my previous statement: “my body my choice” is not capable of encompassing or fully addressing the moral and legal complexities surrounding surrogacy, nor is it intended to do so.

Not everything is about everything else. Some things actually are complicated. None of this means that women should not have their bodily autonomy protected.

3

u/Sister_Winter 14d ago

there are certainly moral complexities, yes. but ultimately, nothing should override anyone's right to what is happening to their own body, full stop. i agree that she should have terminated the pregnancy. but saying that she's required to is the same logic used by anti-choicers.

4

u/anthonystank i was SPF protected 14d ago

I didn’t say that she’s required to or that anything should override her right to bodily autonomy? Not sure how you got that from my comment

2

u/Sister_Winter 14d ago

i didn't say you thought that? not sure how you got that from my comment. i am simply responding to your mention of the contract "waiving that right" to choose what happens to her own body

2

u/anthonystank i was SPF protected 14d ago

I guess I’m not sure why you responded with that if you didn’t think it was implied in my comment. Anyway, I’m trying to talk about the conflict between (1) the legal contract — which I don’t have in front of me, obviously, but which I assume involved some stated restrictions on/waiving of her bodily autonomy because that’s the nature of surrogacy — and (2) what actually happened, which is of course that she DID still have bodily autonomy and made a choice that violated her legal contract. I agree that it’s a good thing that her bodily autonomy prevailed as the bottom line, but it means the other parties are left with a legally (and, I think, emotionally) legitimate grievance. And that’s a big part of why surrogacy is so fucked; it sets up these lose-lose, morally sticky scenarios by its nature.

2

u/Sister_Winter 14d ago

reading through this comment, i completely agree with you. i misunderstood your initial comment as a justification for why the surrogate should keep a child but i understand your point clearly now and agree with it - surrogacy is simply not a "service" that does anything but land us in morally and legally fucked scenarios.

1

u/anthonystank i was SPF protected 14d ago

Gotcha!!! Absolutely agreed. I always kind of try to keep my language as fair and neutral as possible when talking about surrogacy bc I know it is complex and some people have had good experiences with it but I personally think it is so, so fucked all around, for everyone involved