Anyway, no - it is absolutely human trafficking.
You are using this to conflate IVF and surrogacy with the much more disastrous and adverse consequences of real human trafficking, which you are depending on in order to morally frame it as bad, even though those adverse consequences are notably absent in IVF and surrogacy. You are describing surrogacy in terms of a legal definition of human trafficking, in order to give the impression of an entirely different and more colloqual understanding of human trafficking, which usually involves prostitution or forced labour. That's my point here, and I think it is disingenous to conflate surrogacy and especially IVF with these activities. Sending a child to private school or daycare in exchange for funds is not something I have any problem with, and that is "human trafficking". Compulsory elementary education in these cases is an example of human trafficking, if we apply the UN definition for trtafficking. But nobody calls it that because it would be ridiculous to associate it with something like sex trafficking. There is an argument to be made that private schools constitute human trafficking of children more than the practice of surrogacy does.
No one is entitled to children and no one is entitled to use women's bodies to gestate children for you.
You phrase it like it needs to be an entitlement. By the same token, you are not entitled to dictate what women do or don't do with their bodies, including opting to become surrogates. You want to make it out like surrogacy is what is violating the reproductive freedoms of women. Nobody is arguing for forced surrogacy. Even if you point to instances where there were forced surrogates, supporters of surrogacy would overwhelmingly condemn those cases. And like I said, many of the people here espouse adoption as an alternative, which has even more systemic problems.
This is about the rights of the child - something that is protected via the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 35.
I feel as if you are violating the spirit of the law by abusing the letter of it. The reason why this legislation exists is to prevent children from being trafficked into child labour or sexual abuse. There is nothing that is being deprived from the child by surrogacy. And it is not as if there is a overwhelming legal consensus on the application of article 35 as it relates to the regulated practice of surrogacy and especially IVF. Within Canada IVF and surrogacy are both legal and regulated, even though Canada has ratified the Covention on the Rights of the Child. There is room within the argument for surrogacy to change the letter of the law to allows legal provisions for surrogacy, if that becomes absolutely necessary.
These arrangements always involve monetary compensation to the mother/s to acquire these children.
The idea that it always has to involve monetary compensation is a complex issue. Of course, the woman needs to receive a certain amount for support in health and recovery, and for the labour of having children. But this is a process which can be regulated, and which, as I said before, does not need to be for-proft.
Purchasing children is not human trafficking only according to shitlib progressive paedos.
And here you are implying that I am a pedophile because I happen to disagree with you over surrogacy.
As is typical of morons such as yourself, you paint everyone who disagrees with something you want as "conservative" even though the majority of anti-surrogacy campaigning is done by left-wing feminist women:
I pointed out the feminists in my initial post, even if I didn't say the word. I don't understand the point here. And it should be understood that in my post I am referring very specifically to the discourse as it relates to this forum.
