No, it’s not Meloni who unprotects the surrogate mother’s children

Although this pregnancy technique is illegal in many countries, simply cross the border to collect a baby from the arms of any woman in need, then leave presenting that child as your own.

Once home, all that remains is to take advantage of a legal loophole to register the child. And here peace and then glory. After all, Who will have to deal with a family desperate to have children and who will leave a baby orphaned?

And so, the logical conclusion seems to be that someone will have to regulate this calico so that women are not exploited, so that children are not bought (or not many) and so that it is not more profitable for you to rent a belly abroad. .this inside. And we’ll call all of this “preventing abuse and encouraging altruism.”

In Italy, the government of Meloni He’s tired of looking the other way and has decided that surrogacy is a universal crime and you can’t pick up children from another country like they’re an expensive car and come back like if nothing happened. The ban is a complex political move to enforce, but it sends a clear message.

Meloni’s legislation is conceptually right because it does not adhere to a fundamentally flawed framework and because it places responsibility for the problem on those who created it: all those who consider that a woman’s body can be commodified. and that human life can be subject to a contract.

It is worth remembering that ethics in personal relationships also has a public dimension that policy must take into account. Something new in the middle of a political panorama that is content with bureaucratizing ethics and what we call “protection” is allowing the harm to be done with the maximum possible guarantees..

“Does no one think about the children?” cry those who did everything to ensure that these children were born in a context of the greatest possible insecurity.

We have allowed the surrogacy debate to become too disingenuous. We talk about “selfless women”, “desperate parents” and “desired children” and this is how our vision becomes obscured by what is really happening.

He said José Ortega and Gasset that “he who wants to teach us a truth must position us in such a way that we can discover it”. The harshness of Italian law suddenly destroys all this artificiality and has the merit of confronting us with the harsh reality of the consequences of surrogacy.

And this reality is that there is no way to prevent surrogacy from becoming a competitive market in which to seek the best value for money, and therefore there is no way to legislate to truly protect the women. We cannot become “altruistic” something that has the capacity to physically and psychologically destroy the pregnant mother.

But the trickier question here is what happens to this child and what is best for him once he is born. This is the most important and legitimate question. But it would be hypocritical not to recognize that the best interests of the minor, now claimed, were not present at any moment of the process.

What is signed are clauses which even determine whether the mother can wear painted nails. And of course, all those who wonder whether parental authority belongs to the one who pays.

I wonder what those who advocate regulation consider to be a guarantee. That the woman can withdraw at any time and claim custody of her, for example? Or give up? Should we then talk about ensuring that a child’s life depends on the changing wishes of the adults signing a contract?

The best interests of the child are also not met when the surrogate mother is told not to bond with the baby growing in her womb.

Or when an unnecessary early cesarean section is scheduled.

Or when the child is denied first contact and breastfeeding with his mother.

Or when he is conceived through procedures that cause him to have more than four parents and see his identity fragmented from birth.

In itself, surrogacy constitutes a violation of the rights of the minor and no regulation can change this. Because no clause is likely to dissolve the importance of the bond between a pregnant mother and her child. and the mark that separation leaves after childbirth.

So of course, once the child is born, the top priority we must avoid becoming a stateless family. And I don’t think parents should be criminalized and imprisoned (I have more doubts about those who profit from the business).

But we must resist the fallacy that banning surrogacy leaves children unprotected. They are already not protected from the moment their design becomes a business. And it is fair to point out who is really responsible.

If the ban deters children in this situation, it can already be considered a victory. If the ban allows things to be called by their proper name again and recognize that there is no right to parenthood that must be respected at all costsit will already be a success.

And if the ban makes us wonder what will happen to the children, perhaps it means that vetoing surrogacy is a good starting point to put the emphasis where it always should be: about this life which is supposed to bring the world as a product. any luxury and it deserves much more than that.

“No one thinks about the children? » they shout.

Think of them, then.