The American Business That is Banned in Most of the World: Surrogacy
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- In some places, like Germany and France, surrogacy is seen as violating the dignity of women and commodifying babies. But the USA, Mexico, Canada, the UK and others, celebrate it as an option for families.... so what's up with the legal labyrinth? Buy a DNA kit here: bit.ly/TypeAshton Use the coupon code ASHTON for free shipping.
As an added bonus, you can start a 30-day free trial of MyHeritage's best subscription for family history research - and enjoy a 50% discount if you decide to continue it.
Welcome to an enlightening discussion on International Surrogacy Laws, where we delve deep into the complexities of surrogacy ethics and dissect some of the most controversial lawsuits in history.👶⚖️
This comprehensive video is a must-watch for aspiring parents navigating the international surrogacy landscape, legal professionals seeking insights on surrogacy laws, and anyone passionate about ethical debates in modern parenthood. Join us as we unravel the intricacies of this sensitive topic! #SurrogacyLaws #SurrogacyEthics #ControversialLawsuits
🔔 Subscribe to our channel for more insightful content on international law, ethical debates, and real-life legal drama: [Channel Subscription Link]
📝 In today’s episode, we shine a spotlight on:
0:00 Introduction
03:02 Oh Look! It's Jonathan!
06:36 Womb-for-Rent
11:55 Legal Labyrinth
15:17 Not-so-Equal Rights
19:39 Stateless Children & Legal Controversies
24:43 Bloopers
✨ Chapter One - "Understanding Surrogacy: A Global Perspective": Learn about the various forms of surrogacy practices around the world and how they differ from country to country.
🌍 Chapter Two - "The Legal Labyrinth: International Surrogacy Laws Explained": We navigate the complicated international laws governing surrogacy, highlighting the legal challenges and considerations for intended parents and surrogates across borders.
🧭 Chapter Three - "Ethical Implications: The Morality of Surrogacy & LGBTQ+ Controversy": This segment explores the ethical debates surrounding surrogacy, including concerns about exploitation, consent, and the rights of all parties involved...including the exclusion of same-sex couples and single parents.
⚖️ Chapter Four - "Controversial Courtrooms: Notable Surrogacy Lawsuits": Dive into some of the most contentious and headline-grabbing lawsuits in the realm of surrogacy, and discover how these cases have shaped current laws and perceptions.
Episode 126
📷 Follow me on Instagram: / typeashton
🤳🏻 TikTok: / typeashton
🖥 Website: www.blackforestfamily.com
📧 E-mail: typeashton@gmail.com
𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗠𝗘
👑 Patreon: / typeashton
❓ QUESTIONS or COMMENTS? Leave a comment below; we’d love to hear your thoughts on the intricate world of international surrogacy laws, the ethical dilemmas faced, and the controversial lawsuits that have made waves globally.
#InternationalSurrogacy #SurrogacyDebates #FamilyLaw #EthicalDilemmas #SurrogacyLawsuits #Parenting #Fertility #AssistedReproduction #LawAndEthics - Zábava
Buy a DNA kit here: bit.ly/TypeAshton Use the coupon code ASHTON for free shipping.
As an added bonus, you can start a 30-day free trial of MyHeritage's best subscription for family history research - and enjoy a 50% discount if you decide to continue it.
Call me old fashioned or reactionary even… but the idea of making a billion dollar “industry” off people selling access to their uterus seems quite dystopian to me
Nah, I quite agree with you. Surrogacy for altruistic reasons (sister or friend helping a couple) I am very happy to accept and support but a commercial variant is too much in my eyes, has too many connotations with trafficking.
However, legally identifying where the boundaries are will be very hard indeed.
Dystopian? That might be true, but the real question is: Are you willing to use the state's monopoly on violence to prevent it?
@@JanBruunAndersensurrogacy and prostitution are rather similar, shouldn't it be treated the same way?
@@macnof - yes, if you belive that the state should be able to dictate, backed by its monopoly on violence, what a person can subject his/her body to (line in Denmark where it is illegal for a tattoo artist to give me a tattoo on my hands or in my head), then prostitution and surrogacy should be treated the same way.
But how about direct bodily harm? In most countries, if not all, it is banned and illegal for me to whip you, pinch you, or punch you. But boxing is still legal even if it involves a lot of punching with the possibility of completely knocking someone unconscious. Should that not by treated like any other kind of violence, or is it exempt because 1) the participants are there by their own free will, 2) there are rules and regulations?
How about, if not violence, then inflicting pain on another person, which is a very common element in BDSM sexual relationships? There are only a few voluntary rules in such relationships, the primary being that when one participant says or indicate STOP, all the violence/pain play stops!
Do you want to treat street violence the same way as BDSM violence, or should the voluntarilness of BDSM give it a free pass? If so, isn't surrogacy also full of voluntariness, and should be exempted?
I agree. The issue with altruistic surrogacy is how to draw the lines firm enough and clearly enforceable. For example, Canada bans commercial surrogacy (for a profit), but we cannot criminally charge people who do the surrogacy transaction outside Canada (where commercial surrogacy) but do the birth in Canada, provided the payments in Canada are 1:1 reimbursements alone.
I'm also in the conflicted area. I think the issue becomes especially difficult when women from poorer countries are paid as surrogates. Like, what happens if the pregnancy turns out to endanger the surrogate's life? Can she have an abortion? Is that even legally possible where she lives? Who pays for it? Does she even get paid if there is an abortion? These can be very important ethical question for women who may not be able to afford to prioritise their own health in such a situation, given they even legally have the option to do so.
Is she at fault if the child suffers any birth defects? Say she is accused of carelessly exposing a fetus to teratogens, or doing anything that doesn't optimize the wellbeing of the fetus during pregnancy or birth? It gets tricky now, doesn't it? Well lawyers can figure that out.
As an American who was fortunate enough to become pregnant with my own two kids, I had discussed with my husband the possibility of being a surrogate for my sister who had several health hurdles to overcome in order to carry her own children. Adoption can be a very challenging process for many and also very expensive without many options for financial aide. In my sister’s case, she was able to conceive after some struggles. If all parties are consenting, are of sound mind and have legal contracts, I don’t see why it shouldn’t be considered an option for them.
Surrogacy has to be paid for in America because parents literally get zero parental leave here. You have done episodes on this. Paying a woman for their time is an expense since the neither the employer nor the government will pay for maternal leave.
Regarding your sponsor: Sending your DNA and personal data to a private company - what can go wrong?
I would never do that.
Otherwise: Fascinating video.
I find it very hard to make a moral judgment on this topic.
That is really upsetting for that baby, that Belgium couldn't get their act together so he could be with his parents for that long. I hope they are all together now, happy, and that things got sorted out OK
Hej, Ashton.
By the way:
Commercial DNA-based ancestry testing is notoriously unreliable. There are simply too many arbitrary assumptions and attributions about populations. For example, there have been close relationships between Northern Germany and Scandinavia for centuries, which is of course also reflected in the genes.
On the other hand, it is not possible to reliably distinguish a Roman woman from 2000 years ago from a resident of modern Freiburg.
Considered relatively reliable, especially in archaeology, are the analysis if mitochondrial haplogroups, groups of genetic variations found in human mitochondrial DNA. Haplogroups trace and describe the ancestry on the mother's side very well, but this could led to spectacularly incorrect conclusions. So it seemed, judged from the mitochondrial haplogroups of modern Indians that there could not have been any Indo-Aryan immigration, since there are no traces in the haplotypes on the maternal side. Recent studies of the genes on the y chromosome revealed that there were indeed ancestors from what is now Iran in the paternal lineage. Apparently almost only men immigrated to India at that time; it would be conceivable that armies remained in the country.
DNA ancestry tests are somewhat useful when it comes to entire populations because the characteristics can then be statistically evaluated; for individual persons the coincidence, the “genetic lottery”, plays too big a role.
I’m pretty much 100% British but for a while the DNA service I used claimed I was about 6% Scandinavian. More recently they reanalysed their DNA database and that disappeared. I think they discovered that that DNA is more widespread in Northern Europe possible from the movement of Scandinavian settlers into northern Britain
I found the sponsor break hilarious because it showed exactly that, when they found out Jonathan had 0% German ancestry even though he has the paperwork to prove otherwise.
@@molybdomancer195 100& british ... so not anglo-saxon? viking... roman... celtic... ;)
Not to mention that when you test yourself, your basically testing the whole family tree backwards. Even those who do not want to be tested in your family is tested as they will be 99.9% identical. Then you have the stuff you pointed out. Twins in Canada tested those companies and the result back was very different. On top of that you have no idea where your DNA is used. They probably sell it on as the price is so low
The "Scandinavia argument" was also the first thing that came to mind, especially for Northern Germany, then I thought of the Angles, Saxons (German/Scandinavia) and Jutes, who blessed the British Isles with their DNA, and for the North African part I thought of the Goths again once also settled in North Africa.
Gene share Nigeria: the question is how long ago this origin lies.
Let's just remember that this share can possibly be traced back to trade relations with North Africa.
And anyone who paid attention in history class also knows that the slave trade continued around the Mediterranean for a long time.
Complex issue. As someone biased (without strong urge to become a mother), I question someone's right to become a parent just because the urge is there. Like everything in our 'on line' society, we can acquire anything from our armchair and we want it delivered asap. And just like prostitution, I fear indeed most surrogates are not doing it because they love it, but rather out of necessity. On the other hand can we blame poorer societies for trying to make a living . And like you point out, legal consequences arising from international surrogacies. The Belgian case you mentioned, with a child left in limbo for so long is likely to experience lasting effects on bonding with it's eventually recognized legal parents. So for me, I am quite happy with the law as it is in my country, not entirely forbidden, but not allowed commercially. The potential legal hazards with international surrogacy, or in case of the child being born with defects and the parties reneging on obligations, etc are awful but I still don't believe that we protect children the best by letting all restrictions go.
Complex? No, not at all.
The answer is simpel: My body, my choice. Be it surrogacy, prostitution, tattoos, or drug use.
Yes, when you are a society where inequality is great, you can buy anything if you have money, but in other countries where equality is greater, most people do it for the sake of humanity.
but are we to believe that you don't mix politics and religion into your writing, I actually don't think so..
The example with the Belgium Couple shows that some parents aren't able to do the research in advance.
@@JanBruunAndersenCaution. Drug use sometimes has indirectly negative consequences on outsiders who become, unwittingly, the user's victims.
@@tic-tacdrin-drinn1505 - if principles like my body, my choice gets encumbered with too many restrictions, they stop being principles and turns into privileges. And priviligies can and will be taken away.
About your remark, that surrogacy parallels prostitution: Interestingly in my country Austria surrogacy is forbidden, but prostitution allowed - and the general consensus, regardless of political leaning, is, that prohibiting prostitution would just strengthen human trafficking and would make working conditions worse for prostitutes. I think it's the same in Germany.
Maybe because prostitution only affects grown up people whereas surrogacy "produces" a new human being as its result. This is a heavy difference.
So gut recherchierte Videos und dann ein so unwissenschaftlicher Sponsor.
A very interesting video Ashton (again). Thank you for this 'food for thought'.
Contemplating the issue, I would draw a parallel to organ donors. Considering that, as a thought experiment, the baby for the surrogate mother is like an external organ. Surrogacy also has medical risks, invasive characteristics and potentially has lasting effects on the body of the surrogate mother. And delivering this 'service' is meant for the physical or mental well-being of the recipient.
Sometimes organ donors are happy to donate a kidney to someone, when they consider their sacrifice to be less then the health benefit of the recipient (e.g. for family members). Sometimes people are persuaded with money to do it, in which case exploitation lurks around the corner.
For me personally, I like the idea that surrogacy should be limited to the altruistic kind. Better safe than sorry, especially when not only 1, but 2 vulnerable human beings are involved (surrogate mother ánd the child). The right of the would-be parent to social or mental 'fulfilment' does not outweigh the risks of exploitation.
I'm really glad that you made the video nuanced and respected people's desire to become parents. A lot of videos on surrogacy fall into the panic-maker mode and I think that's unhelpful to any action except outright banning - and a lot of the people who want surrogacy banned entirely are extreme rightwing groups, TERFs and other reactionaries who want to restrict people's freedoms.
We definitely need rules and enforcement. It's not okay that countries can just ignore the children born of surrogacy to their citizens or deny them citizenship, and it's also not okay when we let intended parents abandon their surrogacy-born children for whatever reason. You ask for the child, you pick it up. If they don't want to raise the child they can place it for adoption, but I don't like that some people just ignore the child they asked for and get away with that.
As a German, I would also like to see at least altruistic surrogacy legalized in Germany. I mean, what right does my government have to tell me that I can't carry a pregnancy for a friend or family member? If I wanted to do it, I could do it, but I would not be protected and neither would anyone else involved in the process. Banning surrogacy protects no one.
Ever read (or watched) "The Handmaiden's Tale"? Surrogacy is the first step towards that dystopia.
Another highly complex and multi-facetted subject well treated! By the way, thanks for assisting Jason Slaughter in his latest NOT JUST BIKES video on Freiburg im Breisgau, which like magic was uploaded on the same day as your Surrogacy video. Both well-balanced - as we are used to by now.
Good morning Ashton!
Phew, a really difficult topic that has been dealt with beautifully again.
🤔🙋♂️
Good morning Arno. Thank you again ♥️
Altruistic surrogacy is not something we need to debate it's a choice between consenting adults. (And yes I mean using a medical professional to do the work).
Payed surrogacy I would allow only in the strictest of circumstances. Yes a woman has a right to offer her body up for services, but there should be big brakes in that process to avoid exploitation and coercion. At the very least prices should be fixed and the amount going to the mother also fixed.
There would need to be clear laws about the rights of the parents, the "owners" of the child and the surrogate and the resulting child.
In my country there has been so many questions about whether children have the right to meet anonymous sperm donors for example.
So basically until we figure everything out only the altruistic model works. And considering that a lab is not always required, that's hard to stop anyway.
Another wonderfully executed video on a complex topic!
It's hard for a man to engage in this discussion, but I was a little surprised that you didn't talk in your video about the situation where a surrogate mother might not want to give up the child after birth, and what that might mean, especially when the child is still the genetic offspring of the intended parents. I don't know how often that happens and I don't want to create the impression that this is a common issue, when I really can't tell, but it seems important enough to be also legally addressed. To me, the ethically difficult part seems to be: deciding who has the right to legal parenthood, and the issues you raise in the video happen to be the flip side of that. It makes sense to me to try to avoid these problems by regulating surrogacy and especially by not allowing it, but I can still see the problems you raise (though I'd still like to mention that even a child without legal status here in Germany has not only the right but even the obligation to get an education, and I think it's a huge achievement that this is usually made possible here!)
On the other hand, we should be aware that surrogacy is not something new, but has always existed and always benefited only the upper class (as depicted in the 1997 drama "Firelight" set in the early 1800s, for example), and I assume that these probably even more exploitative arrangements in earlier times may have shaped some of the current legal situations in many countries. I understand the argument for a woman's sovereignty over her own body, but I have many difficulties defining where the line should stop. I'm sure we wouldn't want to allow the sale of someone's kidneys, for example, by choice? Because it's always taking advantage of someone's situation of economic desperation and I really can not judge how that might or might not be the case with surrogacy as well.
The ban on sale of kidneys in most places has far more to do with being fair to recipients than avoiding exploitation of the kidney providers. It is usually handled by the same laws that say you can't sell blood or plasma (even in the US you can only be compensated for your time legally, the usability of the product or success of extraction cannot legally factor into compensation). When people do get charged with illegally paying for or getting paid for a kidney, the payee is typically not in financial straights.
I don't see how to map the transplant organ market ethics onto surrogacy.
If surrogacy were legal in Germany the surrogate would be the mother as the woman who gives birth is by law the legal mother.
In the US a surrogate is not the mother because she "only" carried the baby and gave birth, but the dna is someone else's. Strangely the exact same thing is no problem when a woman is having a baby with a donor-egg, then suddenly it is crucial that she carried the baby and gave birth. So who is the mother depends. It's not definite but up to interpretation. And therefor something to argue about. But hey, it keeps the lawyer's in business.
this is a very complicatet topic. i just want to state that in my opinion the child has to come first. every country that allows that has to make sure that always the child interests come first. every case that could happen during the pregnancy has to be covered before birth. and of course, it shouldnt be a business for profit.
greetings
Now it's clear to me why this is not outlawed in the US. I never understood how people could find this ethical. You ban abortions because the child is more important than the mother carrying it, of course you wouldn't understand why we outlaw surrogacy. It is about the protection of women, not children. The children cannot exist without a woman being pregnant. But selling a pregnancy with all its risks is what is unethical. It's like paying for an organ donation. It is always exploitation.
While I understand the advantages, it's also extremely hard to avoid abuse so in general I do feel the risks outweigh the gains here.
My main concern would be whether a surrogate mother would be willing as much as a "regular mother" to make lifestyle compromises for the sake of the unborn (think smoking, alcohol, food etc.)
That's not even the point of debate here, it's the risk the pregnant person is carrying. You sound like an American pro-life anti choice person. That is really not the main point why countries outlaw this. If you already know what it takes to carry a child to term, you ought to realize how demanding it is. How risky, How incisive in life. It's like renting a piece of your body with special demands and restriction upon you and people are paying for it. You basically rent yourself out like a piece of furniture. These women are human beings, not objects or puppets. The child is not more important.
Before India banned commercial surrogacy, at least for foreign couples , a couple looking for a surrogate mother would be allowed to screen for those criteria. My sister in law was very strict about that, she wanted a nonsmoker non drinker to carry her child.
that is one aspect. The MAIN aspect is the FEELLINGS and thoughts a mother has while carrying a child. And THAT you cannot regulate. Sure, any mother can potentially be stressed during pregnancy. But a surrogate mother will surely NOT develop love for the child - and preparing for life tike this is - cruel to say the least!
@Ashton, you are pointing out a bunch of questions I did not even know existed.
The Norwegian royal family got in trouble due to surrogacy a few years ago.
One of our princesses tried to help a friend wjo needed the service.
So she isn't the sole possesor of her eggs or womb? Hmmmm. Interesting.
@@Starry_Night_Sky7455 You misunderstand. The crown princess used her status to basically smuggle the surrogate child into the country on behalf of a friend, but she was not donating eggs or anything. But she was fully aware that surrogacy is illegal in Norway.
As for your DNA results: the anglo-saxons were northern german tribes, so there's your german heritage (combined with the scandinavian one). For the other parts: well, that's some thousands years of european history.
Yeah, keeping in mind how many people and tribes roamed the territory we regard as Germany today it's basically nothing more than rolling the dice...
Yeah - since Germany was always the melting pot of Europe, northern Germans being localized partly to Scandinavia by myHeritage AND having genetic connections to southern UK is rather normal.
They could also trace back their more recent pre-America ancestors to East Frisia in the most northwestern coastal corner of Germany. So the Scandinavian results they got aren't all that surprising with that in mind.
Surrogacy should just be legal.
Concerning heritage:
As a person with a very long documented Eastern Frisian ancestry myself, and bit of a history nerd, I want to add that Frisians are an ancient ethnic group, documented over two thousand years, that were notorious seafarers themselves in constant contact with Angels, Saxons, Jutes and last but not least Danes. So it doesn't surprise me that we with Eastern Frisian heritage, get lumbed together with Britons and Scandinavians.
Gday Ashton, thank you for your time and research once again to bring us another important topic for conversation.
It is such a blessing to give birth naturally and share the experience with your beloved partner. I can’t imagine my life any other way. I feel extra blessed to now be a grandparent and share in my children’s children. The joy this brings is immeasurable .
I have complete admiration for people who adopt or foster children .God knows there are so many children in desperate need of a safe and nurturing environment and caring family.
I can also understand that overwhelming longing to be a parent that can only happen with the help of science or surrogacy. I am not opposed to people’s right to have a child, I’m just against these methods being used to exploit people at their most vulnerable and emotionally susceptible time.
Oh, I forgot: in regards to your DNA testing: it reminded me of a Canadian show I saw on the net on exactly that topic. They tested various different companies that offer statements about heritage based on DNA information. And because the all used different methods, i.e. different markers on the genome, the results had some significant differences. The most hilarious ones were displayed when it came to the results for a set of identical female twins - they might as well not have been related at all according to their heritage information...
I'm a bit mad at myself,though, that I can't remember the name of that documentary but I think it was one of CBC's.
Again, another great video of yours. I very much appreciate that you try to avoid a personally biased undertone and make it very clear when it's a conclusion based on data and when it is your own opinion. A virtue that's not always the case anymore in our modern German media world. Great work, lady!
It was on CNBC, on some customer support show
Ich habe die Sendung gefunden, kann sie aber weder benennen noch verlinken weil mir sonst mit Sperrung der Kommentarfunktion gedroht wurde. Schöne neue Welt!
Surrogacy...what a mess
Anyway, another great report, Ashton
Thank you for another Sunday morning brainstorm. Always great content, appreciate it
It's a very complicated and for some people also emotional topic so that it's difficult to find a balanced opinion. To me as a father of two wonderful natural born girls I feel privileged and graceful and don't blame anyone for their wish for having children of his own even by using alternative methods.
But I fully reject commercialisation of these methods. A profit oriented industry driven by greed would make building up a family a consumer decision with all the manipulation and influencing modern marketing uses today. Haven't we all at least once in our lives purchased something based on ads or extremely well made commercials that soon after we regretted ? What about the "ordered" child is born with a handicap or doesn't look as cute as expected or has a genetic defect ? It's a human being and deserves the most of security, support and affection of all involved. A situation where the child will end up abandoned without a family, name and home is absolutely unbearable and proves this way of becoming parents wrong.
The "Sponsor message" sounds like "our sponsor for this video appears unreliable and gives questionable results that we don't really believe."
Thank you for wading into these moral and ethical minefields! Your diligence is evident, setting an appropriately high bar for more discussion.
jeez, Ashton, you're making my sunday morning into an ethics class. But ok, let's get into it:
There's a bunch of ways to help people who are unable to get a child "the normal way" even in Germany. If all of these fail, i would consider adoption as a better option. Surrogacy to me always includes exploiting another person for my advantage. So i mostly agree to the german law in this case.
I agree, but as a man I abstain. I believe that only women are allowed to decide.
@@McGhinchAnd women usually do it out of need for money, not out of charity. I'd be cautious about calling it voluntary
@@nonamegirl9368That's right, and the psychological damage to the surrogate mother cannot be ignored!😢
@@nonamegirl9368That is probably true. But that is also the reason why it is only for women to decide. Men must not interfere. If requested, men could assist if women need psychological advice.
"Voluntary" is often influenced by (perceived) priorities. I am in no position to judge.
I agree. BUT the real problem is, in my opinion, that we created a society where people are desperate and in need enough to sell themselves that way.
The content you're producing is nothing but awesome.
I love the detailed looks and well written scripts.
Glad you like them! Thanks 👍
I seriously considered altruistic surrogacy for my sister. Unfortunately, this is illegal in my country and the same law as in Iceland applies (the person who gives birth is considered to be the mother). My sister ended up being a foster parent instead.
Great to see you get a shout out from Not Just Bikes!
Your channel is in the same league as Verisateum even though you have a fraction of subscriptions
My reaction to all the stories of stateless babies basically boils down to the same question : why the hell didn't the wannabe parents research their legal situation long before even looking for a surrogate mother? At the same time, this video only told the stories where things went wrong, and we weren't told how many times things went right. So we don't really know what the overall failure rate for samesex couples surrogacy cases is.
Wow, starting a sunday with a topic that's as controversial as they come. Kudos to you for picking that topic, Ashton!
I have to say that I'm as ambivalent on this as you seem to be. I have no kids and never had the overwhelming desire to have kids. But I can sympathize with people who do have such a desire - notably with no restriction in terms of their sexual orientation, mind you.
What annoys me to no end is the shortsightedness of governments that allow scientific progress but seem to think that the outcomes of those progresses are strictly hypothetical. As in too many other cases their world seems to have a sudden end when it reaches the tips of their noses.
And I'd like to add another point: I dont' have any data on this and will admit that it's based on my perception of societies around the world and thus maybe just a more or less educated guess: what kind of " social class" are the majority of women who offer surrogacy part of? If my gut feeling is true then they will be women who are in need for money. And then we're very close to the topic of exploitation, aren't we? An impression that could be easily remedied when data show that it's women across the whole social spectrum who are offering that kind of service. But I'm afraid we all know that's not likely to happen...
Spain also bans surrogacy _and_ surrogacy tourism.
Really great one
Ashton and Jonathan, your DNA results were really interesting! However, it's important to take these estimates with a grain of salt. If Scandinavian settlers came to Northern Germany a thousand years ago and stayed there, marrying mostly within similar communities, their descendants will be genetically Scandinavian even though they've been Germans for centuries. There's an example of this happening on an island off the coast of Scotland, where Vikings wiped out the local population and Norwegian settlers replaced them. The islanders are culturally Scottish but genetically Norwegian.
In a case where you have something like 1.5% ancestry of a far away country, there's several possible reasons. Either one of your ancestors several generations back is from that country, like 100% Nigerian, and that DNA gets (approximately) halved each generation down the line. Or you could be descended from a population where nearly everyone has a little bit of ancestry from a certain group, so the amount of DNA from that group doesn't diminish from one generation to the next. I have a small amount of Central Asian DNA, as do a lot of Central European people. This probably dates back to the migrations of the 4th to 7th century, when the Huns came west.
Love you Ashton you make me think again children should live whith loving parents😍
From what I gather in the Netherlands surrogacy is allowed on altruistic grounds (granted I looked that up a couple of years ago when we where in IVF treatment.
While we where lucky and were able to get pregnant through IVF both adoption and surrogacy had been on the table for us (due to endometriosis we had to do IVF) but with each option we had our "concerns".
For context my wife was diagnosed with endometriosis at a relative late age (unfortunately not very uncommon with this disease as most doctors will dismiss women with the symptoms and not follow up) so we started IVF late.
We did consider adoption, but in the Netherlands (at that time) the rule was there cannot be an age gap greater than 40 years between child and parent (I was 41 at the time), so having a "real" baby through adoption was impossible (I know that sounds horrible but as much as think about having kids is a rational decision it is also an emotional one (not to speak of societal pressure on women to have )).
Surrogacy, because it was altruistic this (in our mind) would mean someone close enough to trust (and be willing to do this for us) but raised questions about "regular" interaction which might occur because the surrogate is/might also be part of our regular life.
After this experience I'm very glad we have all options available here in the Netherlands but that those are limited (or governed by laws) to protect both the parents and the child from exploitation.
Those laws make sense, though I cannot help thinking the 40year parent to child age gap for adoption is a weird restriction, why cannot an older couple adopt (maybe to a high limit, like 70 year-old couple adopting a newborn)
MyHeritage and other DNA tests are not relieable when it comes to "where your DNA comes from".
If using someone body with proper consent for cash is a bad thing, why not also banning every handling physical work type job ?
As long as everybody got what they want, it seems to be a solid foundation.
If you don't want to do it yourself, do not sign in, but do something else that would fit yourself better.
Now if we go deeper, I also think that workers should have the right to oppose a hierarchical decision and to have a real vote.
The same logic should apply here.
As a gay man who hopes to have children one day I think it should be legal, well regulated and subsidized by the government. This will prevent exploitation and address inequality.
More research definitely has to be done and international cooperation agreed upon but I’ll be damned that we have this technology and ability to use it for good and not do so because the problem seems too problematic.
I wish you all the best in your future family-building journey! I hope it will be accessible and available to you, and safe for everyone involved.
Is there even a uniform correct answer? Am inclined to say no.
I also left feeling so conflicted.
I love to watch Ashton Abroad 😁
This is a difficult subject, it made me think
I really left feeling very conflicted.
If there's money, someone will do it. Legally, or not.
I think you can adopt a child instead, there are many orphans, but you have to check carefully if you adopt in certain countries that the child is not legally put up for adoption, in Sweden there has been a debate about children from South America and Korea has gone right to. But there are often children in the country you live in to adopt.
To bring in a different tone....
SPF 100....Jonathan, you are the best. I love your Scandinavian humor 😊
In the UK being paid for surrogacy, blood and organ donation is illegal.
But being an unpaid surrogate is allowed. The surrogate mother is registered as the child's mother. The couple raising it have an adoption certificate for the child.
Tough topic - and again well researched and presented in a nuanced way. In comes down to the question: Who is the mother? The woman giving birth or the "owner" of the ovum. So what if the birth giving mother wants to keep the baby? Should she be allowed to change here decision? At the very least surrogacy shouldn't be a business, as it is in the UK.
In Germany there is also the historical context from the Nazis claiming racial superiority (Germans as the Herrenrasse). For me, surrogacy as a business with wealthy genetic parents and birth mothers doing this to make a living has therefore a "the handmade's tale" meets "the man in the high castle" vibe.
wow cudos to you for wanting to step into this minefield. complex ethical topic i haven't really thought much about, or really know anything at all about. also impressed me how well you managed to give us an balanced view on this. regarding the laws around the children that already born this way, shouldn't the Convention on the Rights of the Child be stronger than citizen's laws, and the fact the welfare of the child should always be in focus? but regarding your last question, if surrogacy should be banned or not? That is a really hard question, because on one hand, yes women should have the free will to decide for themselves if that is something they wanna say yes to or not, but on the other hand id imagine it something that could be really easy to exploit. if a woman lives under severe poverty, how easy would it be to get her to agree to do this for some money? tho i can see why people want children with their own genes, personally i would think theres already alot of children in the world that for some reason dont have parents and live in orphanages that could be adopted instead?
To be clear, commercial surrogacy is illegal in Canada (it is criminalized) under the Assisted Human Reproduction Act of 2004. Legally, surrogate mothers can only be reimbursed direct costs that the surrogate mother incurred within Canada (Canada can not criminalize payments to surrogate mothers made outside Canada even when the birth takes place in Canada and/or the surrogate mother is Canadian). Further, provincial law governs the standing of surrogacy contracts, such that the Province of Quebec renders all surrogacy contracts null and void. Quebec's civil code goes to the point that a baby whose surrogate mother gave up her legal right to the baby, leaving the baby WITHOUT a legal mother (the wife of the donor husband has no legal standing regarding the child under Quebec courts).
The issue of stateless people comes up in other ways. There is an ongoing (I believe) dispute in Canada between a man born to foreign parents who were working at a diplomatic mission around the time of his birth (and so exempted from jus soli). Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada argues his parents were still diplomatic employees at his birth, and thus he is not a Canadian citizen. As a young adult, he made several mistakes and ended up convicted of various crimes and served prison time. As he is not a Canadian citizen according to the government, CBSA moved to deport him to his parents country (where he has never been to and knows no one) based on serious criminality (deemed inadmissible to enter/remain in Canada by virtue of serious criminality). His parents country won't let him in, leaving him stateless as Canada and his parents country both won't accept him as a citizen and resident. Meanwhile, he has spent significant time detained in Ontario provincial prisons (despite completing his sentences) under CBSA immigration detention orders.
Another case comes up with women from US, Canada, UK, and other countries that went to support/fight with ISIS. The UK has revoked these so-called ISIS brides citizenship, rendering them stateless and stuck in a refugee camp, while countries like Canada have repatriated them (not without controversy -- not politically popular to let 'terrorists' in) under various conditions (in Canada, they are under peace bonds and/or facing criminal charges after being arrested upon return to Canada).
Very interesting and complex issue, yes! I had never really thought about it much, but you got me thinking about it now. On the one hand, banning surrogacy prevents the exploitation of women, and I also can't help but feel that basically treating living human beings as incubators isn't...right/proper/good. On the other hand, I can also empathize with people who desperately want a child but for whatever reason can't become pregnant themselves. And if there is someone else who is willing to carry the child to term for them, why should anyone else have the right to tell them they're not allowed to do that? It seems that the way it is handled in Canada, the UK etc., where surrogacy is allowed but only if it's not done for a profit seems like a relatively good compromise that still allows for people who can't have kids themselves to be helped while also limiting the possibilities for exploitation. That being said, is it really enough to only cover the on-paper costs of a pregnancy? What about the fact that the woman carrying the child is putting her health and life at risk? Or the emotional impact a pregnancy (and then giving up the child!) has on her? Is it really fair to make financial compensation for those things illegal? And, well, at the end of the day, a woman's body belongs to no one but herself. If she decided to carry a child for someone else, shouldn't that be up to her and her alone?
What I also find interesting is that there are countries that forbid surrogacy but allow prostitution (like Germany) or that allow surrogacy but forbid prostitution (like the US). As was pointed out in the video, both 'services' use someone's body for commercial use. So how come these countries handle these issues in opposite ways?
We can sell our bodies working in warehouses moving boxes, or hunched over desks moving keys, or in fields kicking/dribbling/whacking balls, or in job sites hitting nails, or through popping out kids for others... but we're not allowed to sell our bodies bringing pleasure to people?
We're quite the weird society aren't we.
I think the U.K. has it about right. Imagine being a child created by surrogacy and finding out you were carried by a “womb for hire”. Far better that it is a gift of service by the surrogate
Pregnancy changes people, or better: women. You are never the same again inside after giving birth. And that is the reason why you cannot compare surrogacy to, say, warehouse work.
1. I am Dutch, so I probably have that bias, adding to that our country did not go over one night's ice with making the laws. And not all Dutch would see it the same way. Bible belt Dutch might disagree with my statements. For me; *the commercial surrogacy can be borderline human trafficing.* The alturistic version in my views is a little bit different. Where is the line? Same goes for adoptions. Many mistakes been made in the past if we hear stories of adoptees, not all of them, plenty of positive stories also, but also negative. Two sides and the neutral happy medium.
Adoption also ties in, and laws surrounding this, and many other ways of parenting or guardianships, and family desires.
2. For me it all is more *individual case by case situation,* I get both sides. (As a gay man who has had to grapple with the wish to have a family as a child, or was this also just social programming of things like relationship escalator. I haven't done the traditional family thing and being 43 I think time has passed on that.) Also looking at the child's life in all that.
Also in the end I am more in line with a life philosophy to let nature run it's course, than full on playing for god. Again where is the line?
What is just medical intervention, and what is bigger than that, and playing for god.
3. Human rights, freedoms (that should not infringe on the freedom of others), and *children's rights.*
My focus was on the life of my offspring, and the quality of their life, and if I was able to give them the best and all the things I wanted for them.
If it had been a "natural" accident I would/could have been a decent father, but not perfect. I would have rolled with the punches.
It would have been a very deliberate choice of mine in my specific case, and the child would know this in the end.
Climate change, social unrests, the craziness of humanity... I could not with a concious mind add a new life into this suffering we humans cause.
Doing so would have been selfish mostly.
The majority of humans have grappled with their life struggels, and trauma's, and not having asked to be born into this life of trauma's. Non of us have.
Accidents happen, choices happen, and manufactured consents/choices happen.
Where do our right begin, and where do they end?
This might tie in with Pro-choice & Pro-life/Pro-baby dialogue - Just to be clear; I'm Pro Choice in the end. And glad it is not my choice to make in that way. It also ties in with genetic altered/designed babies, in a twisted way. [Less pro-choice, here with designer babies]
The surrogacy especially with the artificial womb technologies they are still working on, also to commercialize (capitalize) also tie in.
Als een schaap over de dam is volgt de rest. Dutch saying. If one sheep has crossed the dam/dyke/bridge the rest will follow.
Twenty years ago the tech was already that far that they could take the egg of a cow, or an actual human surrogate/donor strip it from the genetic material and put in the genetic matterial of a man, and then fertilize it with sperm of a male partner. Same sex male couples could produce genetic offspring scientiffically, also same sex female partners with one less step in between.. Ethics of science... They could, it would be expensive - but was it ethical? It has not happened for as far as I know.
Time went on.... There have been mice that had offspring without a partner, but with scientific help; Virign mice births with just the mothers genetics.
Women don't need men, men don't need women - they just need the building blocks of life and science. Theory less in practice.
I could in theory as a man reproduce with offspring that is just a remix of my own genetics.
But now the first CRISPR babies have been born in 2018, China already. HIV immune babies (as claimed).
Where/when do we cross lines?
I get the desires, but for me we have been crossing lines.
Because we can does not imply we should.
Is alturistic surrogacy crossing that line? Not always, but it could.
I am also pro euthanasia, but less for death sentences. Against eugenics, and genocides, etc.
To make it more relevant with the Israel Palestine conflict and the worth of human lifes.
I am fine that I was born homophile and homosexual, and this being part of a way for nature to control populations and overpopulations.
I can still be a father figure and a mentor and guide and protect human kind - Fine if you read kind in German thus kid/child.
I feel like this is a bigger issue that needs to take in other parts of society to determine the ethicality of the practice. In a country where the individual is likely to be socio-economically well off, proper laws to prevent abuse is in place and predatory practices is kept in check I wouldn't see any inherent wrong with an individual picking a line of work that involves letting others make use of one's body, if putting it that way is correct. A little like Netherlands approach to prostitution. A lot of it just really depends on how likely the practice is to be taking advantage of vulnerable people. It very much feels like a stigma that have survived through centuries of religious traditional views that we haven't really moved past yet, at the very 'least in the case of prostitution.
The one solid argument against surrogacy is that it turns children into a commodity, but at the same time I feel like it is partially rooted in being offended for somebody else and is something people actually born from surrogacy should have a say in more than anything, it's not like the resulting children are unwanted by the parents who made use of the service and the reality is that adoption too can be complicated. Especially if the child adopted isn't a baby at the time and can have issues as a result of being put for adoption that requires truly responsible people to correct or deal with and makes the child just straight up unsuitable for just any parent to adopt. Maybe a good follow-up topic would be a comparison on how strict adoption is versus surrogacy in the countries where it is most common as well?
The only way international surrogacy could survive is if an agreement was made that the hospital where the surrogacy is being ordered from requires the to-be parents to have taken in the laws in the country where they intend for the child to live in or be required to deny service if there is cause to believe that they would be denied parenthood in said country. Per usual it feels like the businesses enabling the commercial use of the practice have zero responsibility in the matter when they should have some to ensure that the service they provide can actually reach its intended goal.
India recently banned commercial surrogacy, because of many of the issues you mentioned here. But it’s not all bad. My brother and his wife used surrogate in India, and got three beautiful girls, triplets. They are adorable, bright, full of life, and I a, a very proud uncle. Surrogacy is not all bad.
Heck, this is SUCH a loaded and difficult topic... not that I have ever spent much thought or delved into the matter before this video. Sure, I may have heard about surrogate mothers before, but rarely spent a minute on the consequences or the reasons for such a 'transaction' (for lack of a better, non-loaded word).
There are soooo many aspects that need to be discussed. Hidden abuse of legal surrogacy due to financial dependancy, thus degrading women to walking birthing stations; the potential lawsuits over parenthood due to biological mixing of genomes; legal matters of hereditary estates after the death of a parent (surrogate or not); lawsuits over hidden or overt potential birth defects, thus either stipulated abortion of an 'unwanted' foetus due to 'undesireable traits'... the list is long, and very very ugly.
Because with humanity, even the best intentions, can and probably WILL BE overturned and turned into something ugly, be it legal or illegal.
Even the most altruistic surrogacy may lead to the death of a mother during pregnancy or birth, with varying levels of this sad statistic as per country levels. How to compensate the husband of a couple who's wife died trying to help their friends carry a child to term, only to loose both wife and child? Or IS there even a need for compensation in altruistic surrogacies?
What about commercial surrogacies, same scenario?
What about the babies of surrogates that somehow are NOT accepted into the families of the recipient parents? Are there stipulations that the recipient parents HAVE to take on the child/children from the surrogate mother, no matter how they turn out? Can they be given up to adoption? Who pays for such (in this case frivolous) abuse of the surrogacy system?
Can there even be legally binding contracts between surrogates and recipient parents that overcome all of these problems?
It is such an incredibly difficult topic. I don't have any good answers for the many questions I personally came up with. There are probably (most likely) a lot of problems I have not even recognized or overlooked. Interesting topic, definitely, but certainly an ethically very loaded, if not questionable topic.
It's just Socialism. The idea is from Socialists, the requirement is Socialism and it's as braindead as Socialism, and those effected by it the most are Socialists. Not that playing chess proofs that you are smart, but even failing at it is clearly not a good sign for pushing for Democratic Socialism, but more so a sign, who believes in such a crap.
Those dna tests are in my opinion something uniquely American. I don't think anyone else really bothers with those.
The risks are too great. We wouldn't allow workplace conditions with that high a level of risk of permanent injury or death.
And how high is that risk? Is it higher or lower than in other workplaces?
Research it, and you would be surprised how many other types of work you would be making illegal.
High risk jobs are all over the place, and our economy would crash without them.
@@JanBruunAndersen Yes. I have the numbers. It is not comparable to any other profession.
@@Carewolf - well, I don't believe you.
@@JanBruunAndersenYou think there are other jobs where one in four jobs result in permanent injury, and three in four results in lowered sexual function?
In your research, have you found any jurisdictions that allow commercial surrogacy but bans altruistic surrogacy?
Interesting as always, Ashton!And once again, you hit upon a topic which concerns my very profession.
You can paint Sweden in red too. Surrogate pregnancies are not allowed here either, and I also find the very concept of surrogate motherhood as a business abominable, exploiting probably the most vulnerable women there are. Pregnancy is not a trivial business, as you know. All sorts of things can happen.
Then again, I don't think any health care providers report any parents having a baby this way. And of course, Sweden being a wealthy country with good social safety nets, parents here usually turn to countries like Russia (presumably not after February 24th 2022 though) and India to find surrogate mothers.
There is, however another option, one which doesn't include a huge amount of money.
Often homosexual men have best friends among lesbian women, and it appears that at times there are agreements by which one such woman agrees to get inseminated by sperm from one of the men and carry the baby and give birth, whereupon the gay couple adopts it.
I don't seriously think that would be a case for the legal authorities. However, of course I don't know whether there are any money transactions in a case like this, or whether it really happens just "for friendship's sake".
Considering that babies are often put up for adoption due to parental poverty, you could argue that situation is exploitation too.
If the two parties agree, what’s the problem? It’s nobody else’s business
I have to tell you that company not always right with the were are we from part of the test , different members of my mother's family took their test including my mother and one of her surviving sisters and my self and in some cases it completely missed the Native American in about half of the results including my Aunt but showed up in the middle teen in others including my mother and my self , we already new it was there we have the written documents and birth records , it did pick up that my fathers mother was part German Jewish and with most of my background being Irish, Scots and Welsh a lot of it .
Adoption should have its rightful place in this conversation; I'm not stating that surrogacy shouldn't occur altogether as I tend to steer clear of the matter myself, just consider adopting a little soul somewhere before tackling the whole topic of surrogacy;
And by the way we all know that the very concept of adoption is regulated differently depending on the country of residence, so that's another subject for another day.
Excellent discourse Ashton! 😄🙂
🇮🇹👋
i'm ok with our german law of surrogacy not being allowed. On the other side these laws in many european countries leads to surrogacy tourism with all the negative effects you described in your video. I have seen videos about women who have regretted their surrogacy. I have also seen videos about people who desperately wanted to have their own baby. It's not easy to say what is the best way for both sides.
I always wanted to be a mother and gave birth to two heathly children without complications. I don't know what I would have done if it wasn't possible for me to have children. But my mother was adopted and so I know that being parents is not a matter of genetics. I loved my biological grandparents as much as my adopted grandparents. There was no difference. For me adoption is the best way of having children if it is physically not possible. There are so many out there who desperatly need parents.
My grandparents where the best parents of the world and gave my mother all the love she needed. But she always struggled about not knowing her roots. Her biological mother refused having contact to her and she didn't know anything about her biological father. So I wonder what is about the children of a surrogate mother. How will their persective about the circumstances of their birth? Will they be ok of being part of a surrogate business deal? That is nobody talks about.
And then there are millions of children waiting for adoption out there who can't find loving parents...
Yikes Ashton! Sometimes you hurt my brain! Excellent video though. 🇨🇦
My view?
It should be allowed, but only non-commercially and. *heavily* regulated...
But yeah, if you have a friend willing to carry your child...
Wie immer eine hervorragende Analyse. Ich glaube, Sie verstehen genug Deutsch fuer diesen Kommentar. Beim deutschen Totalverbot sehe ich zwei Probleme: Zum einen kann das Verbot von wohlhabenden Paaren durch eine Leihmutter im Ausland und vielleicht noch die zusaetzliche Registrierung einer Adoption dieses Kindes im Ausland unterlaufen werden. Deutsche Altersregeln zur Adoption werden ja auch regelmaessig durch Adoption im Ausland unterlaufen. Ein weiterer Punkt waere aber, dass die Qualitaet der medizinischen Kontrollen waehrend der Schwangerschaft in Ländern wie Indien von den deutschen Kunden nicht beurteilt werden kann. Wer sagt denn, dass alle Untersuchungen waehrend der Schwangerschaft wirklich gemacht werden? Wer prueft denn wirksam, ob die Leihmutter fuer die Aufgabe wirklich medizinisch und psychologisch geeignet ist und es sich nicht um eine Teenagerin handelt, die selber gerade erst erwachsen geworden ist? Bei einer Leihmutterschaft in Deutschland waere es zumindest moeglich, eine gruendliche medizinische und psychologische Kontrolle sicherzustellen. Nochmals vielen Dank fuer den Post. Sie arbeiten wirklich gründlich, und ich sehe Ihre Videos immer sehr gerne.
Adoptionen im Ausland können nicht mehr ohne Involvierung der deutschen Ämter vollzogen werden. Das wurde vor ein paar Jahren verboten. Man muss heute eine anerkannte Adoptionsvermittlungsstelle oder das Landesjugendamt hinzuziehen und von einer dieser Stellen die Erlaubnis bekommen, überhaupt zu adoptieren.
This segment fits nicely in your last segment. As long as adoption is an option surrogacy should not be a thing
Surrogacy should be a thing for people who can't give birth, and for same-sex couples if someone is WILLING to be a surrogate, and someone is willing to pay for those costs. The GOVERNMENT should not be telling people what they can & can't do with their reproductive organs. Just as much as Abortion being a right, being a Surrogate should be too. Plus not all of us want to adopt because some of us already have Childhood Trauma, and we're already in the process of ending Generational Trauma, and so adopting a child with already so much baggage, would inhibit that. We have a right to have a family that looks like us, and a right to have a family PERIOD. Man f*ck y'all.
But that is misunderstanding several factors. For one, adoption does not always mean the same thing as surrogacy. Plenty of countries have very few babies being adopted per year, often because they have social safety nets. Some countries restrict adoptions a lot. In other places, adoption can itself be fraught with ethical concerns. And then there's the question of if it's fair to tell people how to form their families. It's not like people don't know what adoption is, and we should not make people adopt if they would rather not. Adopted children deserve parents who want them, not parents who settled for them because their preferred path was not available.
@@TheYasmineFlowerPreferred path? I'm going to judge the hell out of some of those that skip adoption for extensive selfishly motivated fertility treatments, or whatever, to selfishly make a mini me.
@@TheYasmineFlower the "preferrec" path should NEVER ever be gambling with creation. Never ever.
@@Starry_Night_Sky7455 People are aware that adoption exists. They will consider it. And it's a simple reality that it is not an option for MANY people. For example, Australia has an extremely small number of adoptions nationally per year (like in the single digit number low) and international adoption is also not as available to a lot of them.
And again, adopted children deserve parents who want THEM. Adopted children are not some sort of consolation prize we hand out to people with infertility issues. Many people with infertility decide to adopt, but many also do not. They get to make that decision for themselves. It's not our place to tell people which path they should or should not take. Give them all the information they need, then let them make their own decisions.
In a world that demands you to earn your living decisions are less free the less resources you´ve got. This is to be seen as one more ethical problem of surrogacy. I think not just in poorer countries since I´m sure also in industrialised countries it´s the less well off women who act as surrogates.
Actually, in the US, it tends to be women in the middle class (all over, so from lower-middle class to upper-middle class) who become surrogates. Because agencies place value in having surrogates who have access to health care providers, live in safe communities, have access to reliable housing and nutrition, etc.
They're not necessarily "well off" in the way we often understand that term, but they're not by and large living in abject poverty.
I’m completely in favor of surrogacy given the right legal framework, but as exemplified with those couple of international cases, countries are far from there. I also fully support adoption, although unfortunately some countries (like Germany) fail to terminate irresponsible parents’ rights fast enough for children to be adopted at an early age, which means that many prospective parents who would adopt a baby or infant are lost because of the fear that older children come with a baggage they’ll not be able to deal with. It’s really a pity.
I have heard a radio documentary about the situation in Ukraine. It was heartbreaking. There was a woman who was forced from the agency to have an abortion. After the 16th week. The Person who ordered the kid insisted .(Can't really call him the father) He claimed that he has a rare condition of a certain sickness running in the family and only takes a girl. Even though tests showed the baby was healthy, the surrogate mother was not allowed to give birth. It's of course not completely to the law, but money bracks rules in some areas. I am against the it, because it makes the kid and mother to goods. And nobody she be goods. Sorry for all the people who are ungainst their will without a child.
Hello Ashton,
there are couples in Germany who are not allowed to get married because they do not have a national passport and cannot provide their own birth certificate.
The children of these parents who are born in Germany don't even get a proper birth certificate (only a "certificate of entry in the birth register").
As a result, these children cannot get married later because they do not have their own birth certificate.
There is a large group of legal immigrants who do not receive a national passport from their (dictatorship) state (or only under unreasonable conditions).
For me, this is a more important issue than the unclear nationality of a baby born through surrogacy.
In any case, it was very interesting to look at your detailed report
Well complex question but at least in Germany from a legal point of view you have to accept the basic law. And we have to accept there are laws and those "rights" even the person in question con not give up. One of those rights is the right to educate your children and the right of the child to be cared for. That right is so important that it makes adoption very hard over here and whether thats good or bad it is the law. And since by making all those checks before adoption Germany wants to make sure the child is cared for, simply deciding that for yourself is not possible since it's not your right but the right of the unborn child. And second the mother can't simply give up her right and her duty to care for the child by signing those things away since only a judge can be trusted with dealing with those basic rights
Regardless of the people involved's motivation, it's a problem if someone involved suddenly change their mind. If the birthmother suddenly decides that she will keep the child, the law might decide that the baby is her's because she gave birth to the baby. Even if gene's of the baby has nothing to do with the surragat mother.
On the topic of surrogacy, I think that commercialisation and liberalisation of it will just bring us closer to dystopian society. People gasping at Handmaid's tale, but being perfectly fine with impoverished women renting out their uteruses.
And to those arguments for the choice...if it really was the choice there would be women from all classes and walks of life participating in it, yet something tells me that is not the case.
I've heard once a statement that for every emancipated woman, there are 10 non emancipated ones, cooking for them, cleaning for them, raising their children, and even giving birth to them now. Commercial surrogacy is just another way of oppression, and I'm perfectly comfortable with outdated laws keeping it minimised.
I think there will always be the borderline cases such as that of the couple that got divorced - but then again, isn't that what the law is trying to prevent -making babies at a whim of a moment.
Marriage is a form of warranty in this situation, and although there should be some provision for flexibility, one would assume that if couple can commit to each other they can commit to a child as well.
Nevertheless, the interes and the wellbeing of a child should always come first.
And btw, not surprised at all at Johnathan's balkan genes. He looks extremely balkan.
Die Wikinger waren auch in Ostfriesland !💻📖
Und die Schweden nicht nur im Dreißigjährigen Krieg recht lange und weit in Deutschland drin...
I believe that Forsker has found out that the Vikings were quite active out on the English Isles, hence perhaps the Scandinavian genes..
Among other things, the research shows that even the Vikings who lived in Scandinavia were a genetic amalgam of ancestors from both southernmost Southern Europe and easternmost Eastern Europe. They also contained genes from the far north and the British Isles. Well, the vast majority of them weren't fair-haired either
14:23
Sure about that?
The map seems to suggest that Belarus is permitting it as well?
German here. It was always clear to me that I would not want to get pregnant and/or have children in this lifetime, so I can't really empathize with women or couples who want a child carrying their own genes more than anything else in the world. Yet I know that in my life, whenever I wanted something so urgently and badly, I would never get it, and once I let go, it came. Today I understand that learning to let go of attachments is one of my major tasks, and it's actually a good one. Surrogacy feels wrong to me, no matter under which circumstances. A baby growing in a womb forms a bond with this woman, and it should be their mother. Everything else feels like exploit to me, or even spending a lot of money to play tricks on nature so they could get what they want so badly. I didn't even know that surrogacy was banned in Germany, but I'm actually happy it is. I think that the laws for adoption should be reviewed. My (biological) father was 46 when I was born. A former friend became a father at the age of 60. Now he is over 80, his daughter married and he has a grandchild. So men can (legally and naturally) procreate children until old age, but some states won't allow a father to be over 40 to adopt a baby? While on the other hand you can pay some lady you don't know to carry a child with my genes to full term? This sounds very wrong to me. But then, just my opinion of course. Thanks for this interesting video, Ashton.
I just found your channel. Are there any views you have as an American living in Germany about the practice of circumcision? I've never understood why this is such a big thing in the US compared to Germany.
Short version: It was popularized by the health movement in the early 1900s by Dr Kellog to decrease children's will to mastrubate, at the time widely considered to be bad for one's health, later there have been health and hygiene claims about circumcision that are debatable and at best shows a marginally lowered risk of catching some STI's. At this point, it is so culturally widespread that most parents just do it because it's what you do when you get a little baby boy.
This trend just never caught on in Europe the way it did in the US
For me, surrogacy is another example of people forcing their own personal wish on whoever, no matter what the consequences are. A typical case of "me, me, me".
I feel with the children. Don't all children want to know who gave them life? What do you tell a surrogate child?
Dear Ashton, this is a bit off topic but I could really use your help. Did you at some point do a segment of taxation. The short is as a dual citizen now living and working in Germany can the income earned here through a German employer be included in filling your US tax return as income an then be taxed on that income? Thank you in advance.
I'm with you I think the government should keep its nose out of a lot of things from adoption to reproduce health care and now suragate parenting if you want to have a child what should it matter what sex you are or you significant other
I think surrogacy should be legal, but with a lot of regulations behind and around it.
1. There should be a social system in place, that that makes is so, that woman are not in need of money from it, just to live.
2. There should be protective laws for the surrogate and her child. (for example, if she wants to keep it after birth.)
3. There should be laws, that allow the child to get to know his/her mother, if they want to.
Adoption is rarely an option, in a lot of countries they have laws that require ancient practices to adopt a child, like an oldschool marriage (woman and man), so no single adoption or same sex adoption, in addion to the fact that in europe there are way more families that want to adopt a child, than there are children that can be adopted.
Foster children is an option in countries that don't allow currogacy, but in that case you are not the legal parent and the child can be taken away at any time.
There should be laws that allow it, while doing everything to protect the dignity of woman and the babies.
Same goes in my opinion for prostitution, as long as the woman does in on their own terms and free will. (Not cause she is forced or needs to do it out of financial problems.)
You say "the kid to know it's mother", which one of the three, the egg donor, the surrogate mother that laboured it, or the woman that raised it.
All three have a right to motherhood of the child. And as the content creator said there is also the (two) fathers, ending up with 5 effective parents.
@@user-zn4pw5nk2v Would set it up in a way that there are legal parants and biological parents.
The right to know who your biological parents are, is mostly seen as a basic human right in my country. And in my opinion that seems fair + it could matter, since it's possible to meet people that a related to you without you knowing.
Worst case you meet your own sister/brother without knowing and start a relationship with him/her. (Not totally against it, but there are risks when it comes to getting children, if you know that the person is related to you, you can take precautions, like dna screening and monitoring or go the way to not get children that are related to you by blood.)
As for the legal parents, these are the parents that have the legal right to raise the child and that are responsible for caring for the child. In my opinion it does not matter if that is just one person, two persons or even more.
Maybe I should have phrased it more like: "right to know the biological parents" than right to know the mother.
About your DNA test...
Nigeria was a German Colony for a while and after that still keept up a very good relationship, so that, out of all African Countries, has the highest chance to be true ^^
Love your discussions. Wonder how you pick the questions you decide on discussing…?
On this issue I wonder why it seems like those accepting especially commercial surrogacy is most often likely to forbid prostitution… wouldn’t these two issues possibly be considered two sides of equal questions (i.e a woman deciding over her own body) - especially when I guess the woman likely to be in the place to consider doing these two things might be women worse off in a society/in the world (bordering to human trafficking)? So why is these countries/states ok with one (commercial surrogacy) and not the other (prostitution)?
That's an argument people who want to ban surrogacy often make, they tend to be second wave feminists who hate prostitution or conservative religious folks who also hate prostitution.
I think in cases like Germany, the ban on surrogacy is motivated by a desire to protect potential life more than any interest in protecting women. I mean, we can't even do a lot of tests on embryos that are routine in other places in the world. And prostitution, as much as there are people who want to do it and have a right to conduct their business in peace, also has a dark underbelly in Germany that the government does not really help a lot with (usually involving human trafficking of women from other countries).
FYI those DNA tests change every 6 months to a year and there were times where I was 15% French and then other times I had no French so take it all with a grain of salt. From what I can tell the paper trail is more accurate at least it doesn't change every 6 months to a year😂
The Icelandic legal position is going to be a bigger issue in twenty years or so (maybe less, maybe more) when an artificial womb is a practical option. The Louisiana law is going to be confusing when producing an egg from a sperm or the reverse is commercially viable (already possible for some mammals in the lab). Those two hypotheticals and prostitution I think give you most if not all of the case studies to do a more thorough ethical analysis of topic.
This is definitely a topic that needs taken apart with hypotheticals and/or corollaries to get an informed opinion. Treating it as one thing can only leave you not conflicted if you have a very strange set of ethics.
I think surrogacy should be limited to people who have no other options (adoption or IVF). This would in reality be gay couples in most cases, as almost all countries that allow foreign adoptions don't allow gay couples to adopt. It would be a temprary occurance while more countries adjust to modern times, and after that very rare.
Altruistic surrogacy seems fine, but I really think the woman should get payed more than just expences. She should be payed extremely well for the use of her body and health risk, in addition to health insurance. There should also be regulations on compatibility. I've heard horror stories of tiny Indian women giving birth to huge European babies and it seems unneccesary (and resulted in Indian banning surrogacy). There also need to be rules to try to avoid coercion. The best would be to limit surrogacy to be between countries with similar social economic populations, regulations and social benefits. Only the mother should profit, no multi million dollar agency.
Context: I live in Norway, where we have inclusive marriage, but not enough children in need of adoption. The adoption agencies also tend to discriminate LGBTQ+ (getting better, but there's not much they can do as long as the children's countries do it). Surrogacy is banned here, unfortunately.
Does ‘surrogate’ always refer to women carrying babies in English? Being Dutch, my first association with ‘surrogate’ is coffee.
What is surrogate coffee?
@@karinland8533 Surrogate coffee is fake coffee. Like what people drank in WW2.
Surrogate means ‘replacement’ or ‘in stead of’. So in both cases the usage of the word is correct.
@@abbofun9022 Ah, I see. Wouldn’t that be a substitute? Are you using the English word in Dutch?
@@karinland8533 ‘Surrogaat’ is a perfectly usable Dutch word as well although it does have a bit more connotation with ‘fake replacement’ than just plain ‘replacement’.
I Vote Small Government on This One -- I Side with Wishing Parents - Just like on Abortion, Let women Be the Boss over Their own Bellies !