Die Ambivalenz leiblicher Mutterschaft in patriarchalen Kulturen

Gepostet am Aktualisiert am

Mutterwitz
oder die Vernunft sozialer Beziehungen bei den Mosuo
Von Lisa Fischer
https://web.archive.org/web/20060206173207/http://www.wienerzeitung.at/Desktopdefault.aspx?TabID=3946&Alias=wzo&lexikon=Frauen&letter=F&cob=6274
Den Artikel von Lisa Fischer habe ich mit Interesse gelesen. Dabei erscheint mir der Gedanke der sozialen Mutterschaft, der die Ambivalenz von leiblicher Mutterschaft verhindern würde, sehr verführerisch.
Ambivalenz laut Duden = Zwiespältigkeit; Spannungszustand; Zerrissenheit [der Gefühle und Bestrebungen]
Ich frage mich jedoch, ob es diese Ambivalenz in matriarchalen Gesellschaften überhaupt gibt? Meiner Meinung nach, ist diese Ambivalenz eine Auswirkung patriarchaler Fremdbestimmung und somit ein patriarchal-soziologisches Konstrukt.
Ja, die sozialen Realitäten werden u. a. qua Definition – hauptsächlich durch patriarchal-dominante Definitionen -(zwangs)bestimmt. Hierbei gilt die männliche Herangehensweise an die Auseinandersetzung mit der Welt als meinungsführend und richtungsweisend. Die patriarchale Herangehensweise an die Erklärung der Welt entstammt dem männlichen physio-psychologischen Bewusstsein  und wird den Frauen aufoktroyiert. Dadurch kommt es zu der sogenannten Ambivalenz von Mutterschaft.
Da Mutterschaft im Patriarchat total instrumentalisiert wird, zwecks Etablierung der väterlichen Genealogie (Erbfolge), wird die selbstbestimmte Mutterschaft (aus Liebe zum Leben) ausgeschlossen, unterdrückt und diskriminiert.
Meiner Meinung nach, wird leibliche Mutterschaft, aus Sicht der Autorin, zu sehr nach patriarchalen Kriterien beurteilt. Das mag für unsere patriarchalen Gesellschaften stimmen, aber sie entwickelt keine patriarchatsunabhängige Sicht. Zwar glaubt die Autorin durch die sogenannte, soziale Mutterschaft, ein Modell für die patriarchalen Gesellschaften entwickeln zu können, um einen Weg aus der Zwiespältigkeit der leiblichen Mutterschaft zu finden. Aber, sie vergisst dabei, dass es, ohne leibliche Mutterschaft weder soziale Mutterschaft, noch Vaterschaft gäbe. Mutterschaft ist die Vorbedingung menschlicher Gemeinschaft.
In matriarchalen Gesellschaften befindet sich Mutterschaft nicht in Spannungszuständen, weil Mütter eine schwangerschafts-, gebär- und fürsorgebedingte Vorbild- und Lebenserhaltungs-Funktion in der Gemeinschaft wahrnehmen und eine gemeinschaftliche Orientierung darstellen. Das Verhältnis zum Kind und zur nachfolgenden Generation basiert auf naturgegebenen Fürsorge-,  Lebens- und Arterhaltungsprinzipien und  hat nichts mit patriarchalen Eigentums-,  Besitz- und Herrschaftsansprüchen  zu tun.
Es fehlt mir in diesem Artikel die Patriarchatskritik, ohne die, sich die Welt nicht ändern kann. Es ist ein feministischer Versuch, Mutterschaft zu erklären, indem die realirdische Erfahrbarkeit von leiblicher Mutterschaft minimiert und durch soziale Mutterschaft ersetzt werden soll, um die Ambivalenz zu verhindern.
Dabei werden jedoch die  Kausalitäten verdreht und eine „naturgegebene“ Ambivalenz vorausgesetzt. Soziale Mutterschaft kann nur eine soziale Ersatzfunktion einehmen, aber nicht den leiblichen Schöpfungsprozess ersetzen.  Leibliche Mutterschaft ist das Agens für soziale Mutterschaft und nicht umgekehrt. Mütterliche Ambivalenz ist keine Naturbedingung, sondern das negative Resultat aus dem patriarchal-suprematistischen Schöpfungsanspruch.
Nicht die leibliche Mutterschaft muss abgeschafft werden zwecks Vermeidung von Ambivalenz, sondern die ambivalente patriarchale Fremdbestimmung muss überwunden werden, weil dadurch  Dilemmata und Ambivalenzen initiiert werden!
Werbeanzeigen

– Life in Saudi Arabia

Gepostet am Aktualisiert am

Die 8-jährige arabische Kinder-Braut starb in der Hochzeitsnacht an den Folgen innerer Verletzungen – Leben in Saudi-Arabien

8 year old Arab Child Bride died on Wedding Night due to Internal Injuries – Life in Saudi Arabia

https://lifeinsaudiarabia.net/blog/2015/10/20/8-year-old-arab-child-bride-died-on?fbclid=IwAR0p6bZrSqa8NmrxU910xes9LlOx6caeztfaABQo_AP-kHLWyMt6ldgareA

A cry from the heart: Surrogacy scandals in Ukraine

Gepostet am Aktualisiert am

by Dr. Renate Klein, FINRRAGEand ABSA (Australia)

On 20 August 2019, Australian journalist Samantha Hawley’s exposé of the dirty surrogacy business in Ukraine aired on Foreign Correspondent on ABC television as ‘Damaged babies and broken hearts’ (written overview, see full video here or below). Samantha Hawley was the courageous journalist who broke the news about Baby Gammy who was left behind with his mother in Thailand in 2014 because he had Down syndrome and his commissioning Australian parents only took Gammy’s able-bodied twin sister home. (The father was later revealed to be a convicted pedophile.)

Hawley does it again with her report on surrogacy in Ukraine which is both heartbreaking and infuriating.

Ukraine is one of the poorest countries in Eastern Europe and still suffering from the ongoing Russian Military Intervention that begun in 2014. Commercial surrogacy is allowed only for heterosexual couples who are medically infertile. However, there is no regulation. It follows that women who are hired as so-called surrogate mothers (a misnomer) by Ukrainian agencies have zero ‘choice’ or rights and become pawns in the hands of unscrupulous agencies such as BioTexCom. Often, they are war refugees who cannot return to their homes. And they have no jobs.

Hawley reports how she finds 3-year-old Bridget who is severely disabled but improving with treatment in the Children’s Sonechko Home at the edge of an industrial city. Bridget, also called ‘Brizzy’ by her doting nurse Marina Boyko who has looked after her since her birth, is there because her commissioning parents, Matthew Scott Etnyre and Irmgard Pagan who live in California, abandoned her after she was born prematurely and very ill, supposedly with brain damage. In fact, they sent a legal letter asking the hospital to switch off Bridget’s life support, as they deemed her ‘in a vegetative state’ and incurable: ‘”We will not take her to America”.

Three years later, Brizzy can see and hear, knows a few words, smiles, eats, and, as former nurse Marina believes, with the right physical therapy she will one day be able to walk by herself (she was born at 25 weeks, weighing just 850 grams). Marina says that for her, she is the most beautiful, most joyous child. But the parents still do not want her. This makes the girl stateless. She now lives in a children’s home and if no family is found to permanently look after her, at age 7, she will lose access to any therapies. At age 18 she will be sent to an old people’s home.

Foreign Correspondent requested an interview with the head of BioTexCom, Albert Tochilovsky. To Australian viewers, BioTexCom is already known through their appearances at Sam Everingham’s 2017 Families Through Surrogacy’s conferences held in London and Dublin after which BioTexCom commented that they gained many new clients and contacts. Described as “one of the best clinics not only in Ukraine but all over the world,” what was not said was that BioTexCom is not even registered in Ukraine, but in the Seychelles. This was revealed in Hawley’s report when a lawyer in Ukraine tried to help commissioning parents with their contract, but was unable to do so as Ukrainian law does not apply to a foreign-registered company.

Samantha Hawley also notes that Tochilovsky “was briefly placed under house arrest amidst allegations of child-trafficking, document forgery and tax avoidance” in May 2018. To date, no proceedings have been brought.

Tochilovsky insists that BioTexCom never had a client called Etnyre and that he has no responsibility for Bridget. He suggests that a rival agency has pretended to be BioTexCom, trying to blame his company. However, he concedes that other babies with brain damage have been born.

The children’s Ombudsman, Nikolai Kuleba, appointed by Ukraine’s President, is aware of Bridget’s story. He also suggests that Bridget’s American parents engaged in a second surrogacy arrangement which resulted in the birth of another set of twins (Bridget also had a twin brother who died). Kuleba reveals that Bridget is not the only child left behind. He knows of at least ten other babies that have been abandoned in Ukraine by their foreign parents. As he puts it: “This is an immoral business, it does harm.”

silhouette of baby over map of Ukraine

Hawley tracks down a ‘surrogate’ mother who was recruited by BioTexCom. She and her husband are war refugees and live in a border town. Thy have no income and the money from surrogacy is hard to resist. Their home was destroyed and they cannot go back. The woman wants to remain anonymous, fearing recrimination from BioTexCom. Her first pregnancy was for a Spanish couple. Three embryos were implanted but later one fetus was ‘eliminated’ through fetal reduction. Five months into the pregnancy, bleeding starts and she has to undergo an emergency cesarian. The babies die. She is left to dispose of them by herself. Eventually she gets $250. Still desperate for money, she begins another surrogacy for a British couple who also features in Foreign Correspondent. Again three embryos are implanted, two later aborted by fetal reduction. The commissioning couple were not informed of any of this. Bleeding started again at 25 weeks and another emergency cesarian was performed. Baby Michael spent 14 weeks in a public hospital which is shown in the documentary as a filthy place. Michael, who is now in the UK with his commissioning parents, also has developmental problems. When asked by Hawley how she was treated, the ‘surrogate’ responded that for the agency, “they are just incubators … they don’t treat you like human beings, they show no understanding.”

Hawley’s story is an absolute indictment of commercial surrogacy in Ukraine. After an outcry in Australia, a #GoFundMe website for little Bridget has been established. After two days close to $5000 have been donated. Hopefully, the money raised will secure ongoing therapy for Bridget and she will find a permanent home in the same way that donated money allows Gammy in Thailand to live with his mother Pattharamon Chanbua.

A day later, on 21 August, Tracy Bowden teamed up with Foreign Correspondent to follow up the dirty Ukrainian surrogacy business with another story on ABC-TV’s 7.30 Report called ‘Australian parents warn reality of Ukrainian surrogacy doesn’t always match the dream’ (also covered in the Wednesday 21/8/2019 broadcast of 7.30 on iView). This time two Australian couples complain about the substandard treatment they received from the Lotus Agency in Ukraine (which is registered in Israel, not Ukraine). It cost them $110,000 and $140,000 dollars respectively and one couple remembers how Lotus asked for more and more money when their twins were born prematurely with bleeding on the brain. The 7.30 Report also talked to a former employee of Lotus who left because of the inhuman ways ‘surrogate’ mothers were dealt with: “A surrogate mother who was 24 weeks’ pregnant started saying she wasn’t feeling very well. … Doctors said treatment would be expensive … the Israeli bosses (Lotus) said they would not treat her. She had to have an emergency birth because of infection. If we had provided assistance when she said she wasn’t well, we could have saved the babies.”

Both Australian couples had opted to use Lotus in Kiev, Ukraine after following Sam Everingham’s advice provided in seminars run by Families Through Surrogacy (now renamed Growing Families). Everingham concedes that his business invites speakers from Ukraine and promotes their ‘educational talk’ on its website for which he gets paid. The 7.30 Report revealed that ASIC figures show that “in the past 5 years, Mr Everingham’s company earnt $2 million in revenue.” Asked on camera about these damning surrogacy stories in Ukraine, Everingham defends his advice stating, “they [the couples] have to take responsibility for their decision.” The families say they are not so sure. Also asked by Tracy Bowden if his company is assisting people to do something that is illegal in Queensland, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory (where it is a criminal act to engage in international surrogacy) Everingham responds, “We don’t believe those laws are right.” This is an outrageous statement to make and we hope that action will finally be taken against Everingham and his company, such as prohibiting them to run seminars on international surrogacy in states where going overseas is punishable by jail terms or fines over $100,000.

We have asked for such actions to be taken for years (see Renate Klein’s 2017 book Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation). No doubt Sam Everingham will now push even harder for surrogacy in Australia, including commercial surrogacy which is illegal.

In response, members of Abolish Surrogacy (Australia) – ABSA – point out that we need to reduce demand for surrogacy which, even if it is done ‘for love’ is deeply harmful and exploitative for the women involved as ‘surrogates’ and egg ‘donors’. Furthermore, no child has ever asked to become a take-away baby (see Odette’s and Rob’s stories in ‘Broken Bonds’).

Brave stories from the ugly surrogacy world by Hawley and Bowden will help. Perhaps Ukraine will follow Thailand, Nepal, Cambodia and India and ban commercial surrogacy. But we do not underestimate the money that is made by ‘#Big Fertility. It’s all about the money.’ Yes, involuntary childlessness can be very painful, but inflicting pain on so many others is deeply unethical and indefensible. Little Bridget will stay in our hearts.

Dr. Renate Klein, FINRRAGE and ABSA (Australia)

Säugling fast verblutet – Beschneidung bleibt straffrei

Gepostet am Aktualisiert am

Chirurgische Instrumente für eine Beschneidungszeremonie: Im Herbst soll eine gesetzliche Regelung gefunden werden. Foto: Bea Kallos

https://www.augsburger-allgemeine.de/bayern/Saeugling-fast-verblutet-Beschneidung-bleibt-straffrei-id53126996.html?fbclid=IwAR274ud-46xUTR3tj5Mci_7dOAzdRKEgImPonVBLFN06VNitup3L0jdx1LM

Ein zwei Wochen alter Junge wurde auf Wunsch seiner Eltern von einem Arzt beschnitten – auf dem Küchentisch. Trotz Komplikationen gibt es keine Strafe für den Arzt.

Die Beschneidung eines zwei Wochen alten Jungen, bei der der Säugling zu verbluten drohte, bleibt straffrei. Die Staatsanwaltschaft Nürnberg-Fürth hat die Ermittlungen eingestellt. Der ursprüngliche Verdacht der gefährlichen Körperverletzung habe sich nicht bestätigt, sagte Oberstaatsanwältin Antje Gabriels-Gorsolke am Mittwoch. Zuvor berichtete der Bayerische Rundfunk darüber.

Das nennt mann nun freie Religionsausübung. Ein Recht, das das Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit einschränkt und verletzt und das ausgerechnet bei Säuglingen und Kindern angewandt wird, die unserer besonderen Fürsorge bedürfen. Deshalb stellt sich die Frage was höher zu bewerten ist, das „Sonderrecht“ auf freie Religionsausübung, oder das naturgegebene Recht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit. Ein Recht, das ein anderes Menschenrecht verletzt, ist fragwürdig und inhuman. Denn ein wirkliches Menschenrecht verletzt kein Menschenrecht!

Beschneidung ist eine Menschenrechtsverletzung

… UND IST KINDESMISSHANDLUNG – PUNKT!

Bei einer Beschneidung werden Kinder körperlich und seelisch traumatisiert. In der Geborgenheit des mütterlichen Uterus und über die Nabelschnur war das Kind während neun Monaten mit der Mutter eng verbunden. Das innige Band der Liebe und des Blutes mit der Mutter hält nach der Geburt noch während der ganzen symbiotischen Phase, während vielen Monaten, an. »In dieser Phase erlebt das Kind sich und seine Mutter als untrennbare Einheit« (Margaret Mahler). Diese von patriarchalen Männern offenbar beneidete Symbiose wird bekämpft und von ihnen symbolisch und physisch durchtrennt. Der Kinderpsychologe Bruno Bettelheim schreibt zu den Initiationsriten, zu denen die Beschneidung gehört, diese bestünde darin, »die engen Bande, die das Kind zu seiner Mutter hat, zu zerreißen und sie durch eine stärkere Bindung an die Männer zu ersetzen, da jetzt die Männer den Jungen das Leben geschenkt haben, wie es einst die Mütter taten. Die verschiedenartigsten Mittel werden angewandt, um den Initiierten von seiner Vergangenheit zu trennen und kundzutun, dass das neue Leben mit der Initiation beginnt… und dass der Zweck der Zeremonien darin liege, die ödipalen Bande zu zerreißen, »um von der Kindheitsphase der weiblichen Dominanz in die zweite Phase der männlichen Dominanz und Kontrolle überzutreten.« Deshalb »müsse der Junge eine psychische Wiedergeburt in der Welt der Männer erfahren, die alle Bindungen an die Mutter löst. Daher rühre das gewöhnlich sehr starre Tabu, das den Frauen die Teilnahme an der Initiation verbietet.« (Bettelheim 1954, S. 160, Hvhb. DW)

DIE BESCHNEIDUNG DES PENIS IST KEINE BAGATELLE

Es geht um das Menschenrecht auf körperliche Unversehrtheit und erfüllende Sexualität des Mannes

Die Beschneidung der Knaben und die Verstümmelung der Mädchen sind schwere Menschenrechtsverletzungen. Kinder haben das Recht auf Schutz und körperliche Unversehrtheit. Niemand wird bestreiten können, dass der für ein Kind nie selbstbestimmte Eingriff äusserst schmerzhaft und traumatisierend ist und dass die negativen Folgen das ganze Leben ertragen werden müssen (s. Doris Wolf ›Die Beschneidung von Knaben‹ 2009, S. 249).

Der US-Psychologe Ronald Goldmann, der Autor des Buches ›Beschneidung: Das verborgene Trauma: Auswirkungen einer amerikanischen kulturellen Praxis auf Säuglinge und letztlich auf uns alle‹ (2019), sagt in einem Interview mit Stefan Schritt (hpd): »Ich habe die möglichen sozialen Folgen eines Beschneidungstraumas in meinem Buch beschrieben. Dazu gehören ein reduzierter emotionaler Ausdruck, das Vermeiden von Intimität, Misstrauen, sexuelle Ängste, Einsamkeit, Verhaltensweisen, die mit einem niedrigen männlichen Selbstwertgefühl und Scham verbunden sind, übermäßiger oder unangemessener Ärger, Unbehagen und Vermeidungsverhalten im Zusammenhang mit dem Thema Beschneidung, verringerte Empathie und die erhöhte Wahrscheinlichkeit unsozialen Verhaltens.« (25.2.2019)
Die ›verringerte Empathie und die erhöhte Wahrscheinlichkeit unsozialen Verhaltens‹ war möglicherweise der Grund für die ›Erfindung‹ und Forderung der Beschneidung der Männer. Die Beschneidung wurde ja erstmals an erwachsenen Männern im patriarchalisierten Ägypten praktiziert und war möglicherweise ein Mittel zur Unterdrückung des auf Frauen gerichteten sexuellen Begehrens der Männer. Der Wunsch nach Intimität mit Frauen, stand der Politik der Eroberer im Wege, die die Männer für den Kriegsdienst benötigten; die also nach einer Möglichkeit suchten, das sexuelle Verlangen zu reduzieren, um die Männer so leichter weg von den Frauen in die rohe Welt der Männer-Kriegs-Herrschaft zu zwingen.

Ausführlich – und zur Erfindung und Forderung der männlichen Beschneidung von Säuglingen im Patriarchat etwa 1000 Jahre später durch Moses in Ägypten:
s. ›Es reicht – 5000 Jahre Patriarchat sind genug‹ 2029, S. 158-165

von Doris Wolf

Ein Leserbrief eines jungen Mannes an Doris Wolf bezüglich Beschneidung (Zirkumzision)

Zur Beschneidung schrieb mir ein junger Mann:
Ich hatte die Gelegenheit, im Urlaub in Ruhe Ihr Buch zu lesen, das mir Marina Stachowiak empfohlen hatte.
Wie immer, wenn man sich einem Thema widmet, das gerne ausgeblendet wird, wuchs die Erregung von Kapitel zu Kapitel.
Aber auch Begeisterung, da ich so viel von dem fand (oder wieder fand), was in mir als Erkenntnis, Gewissheit oder eigene Erfahrung schon so lange vorhanden ist.
Ich wollte Ihnen danken für Ihre einzigartige Arbeit, aus so vielen verschiedenen Quellen Informationen zum Thema zusammengetragen zu haben und dem Leser und den Leserinnen in gut verständlicher Weise nahe zu bringen.

Besonders berührt hat mich auch das Kapitel über die Genitalverstümmelung von Männern, die als solche gar nicht wahrgenommen wird.
Ich gehöre zum Glück nicht zu denen, die dies erlitten haben, aber in meiner Arbeit mit Männern in verschiedenen Settings, spürte ich die Relevanz dieses Traumas in der männlichen Psyche, auch wenn es (bisher) von den Betroffenen nie thematisiert wurde.

Wenn man sich nur vergegenwärtigt, in welchen Kulturen dieser bestialische Ritus heute noch täglich praktiziert wird, welchen Aufschrei es gibt, wenn man nur Überlegungen äußert, die dieses Gebaren in Frage stellt, dann muß man letztlich auch eine Verbindung herstellen zu den Problematiken, die sich zwischen diesen Kulturen auf der politischen Ebene zeigen.

Es braucht bewusste (-re) Frauen und Männer, um an den lebensfeindlichen Strukturen in unseren Gesellschaften etwas grundlegend zu ändern.
Leider ist Mensch träge und klebt gerne am Gewohnten.
Reflektieren ist anstrengend und manchmal auch unangenehm, vor allem, wenn es ums Eigene geht.

Das Erstaunlichste von allem ist für mich die Erkenntnis, dass trotz aller Versuche, das matriarchale Wissen und die Riten auszulöschen, die alte Weisheit immer noch durchscheint und im Menschen vorhanden und wirksam ist!

Manipulative Dokumentarfilme verheimlichen die matriarchale Zeit des Friedens

Gepostet am Aktualisiert am

von Doris Wolf

Seid kritisch und wachsam
Manipulative Dokumentarfilme verheimlichen die matriarchale Zeit des Friedens:

Gerade populärwissenschaftliche, sogenannte Dokumentarfilme bergen die Gefahr, dass wir laufend einer geschichtlichen Gehirnwäsche unterzogen werden. Bestens bekannt dafür sind die Filme über das pharaonische Ägypten oder die Königsdynastien von Mesopotamien, wie es z.B. der Film ›Die Welt der Antike : 1. Geburt der Zivilisation‹ von Guy Evans (2014) zeigt.

Schon der Text zu Beginn des Films suggeriert, Aufbau und Zerstörung unserer Welt seien eine Normalität : »Wenn man sich mit der Geschichte befasst, ist es klar, dass Zivilisationen immer wieder aufsteigen und untergehen. Es gibt keinen Zustand der bleibt. Es ist ein Konzept, mit dem wir uns immer noch anfreunden müssen.«
Müssen wir das? Was hier als ›Zivilisation‹ bezeichnet wird, ist alles andere als ›zivilisiert‹. Es ist das ›Konzept‹ des Patriarchats: männlich, ausbeuterisch, kriegerisch und unmenschlich. Nein, damit müssen wir uns nicht anfreunden. Wir wissen, es gab einmal ein anderes, ein friedliches ›Konzept‹, eine wahre Zivilisation. Das war als Frauen an der Macht waren, während der Zeit des Matriarchats.
Seit 5000 Jahren zerstören machtgeile, kriegslüsterne, patriarchale Männer immer wieder, was Frauen und Männer während Jahrhunderten und Jahrtausenden mit Fleiß und Sorgfalt aufgebaut hatten. Sie tun das bis heute mittels kriegerischer Eroberungen, Beutezügen, Versklavung und Unterdrückung der friedlichen Völker. Kraft ihrer Staatsgewalt setzten die Mächtigen einst Polizei und Militär, brutale, sadistische Schläger mit Schlagstöcken bewaffnet, gegen das Volk ein. Heute sind die Waffen effizienter und raffinierter, doch die Schlagstöcke sind geblieben und der Zweck des Einsatzes bleibt der gleiche.
In der Geschichtsschreibung des Patriarchats, welche die Zeit nach den kriegerischen Eroberungen und der Versklavung der Völker beschreibt, wird dieses ›Konzept‹ durchwegs bewundert. Verharmlosend werden die verheerenden Kriege, die die verzweifelten Völker erbarmungslos ins Elend stiessen, als ›erfolgreiche Ausdehnungen der Grenzen des Reiches‹ bezeichnet. Die zahllosen Schlachten werden ›große militärische Erfolge‹ genannt; je mehr davon, desto berühmter wurden ihre Anführer, die zu ›erfolgreichen Feldherren‹ hochstilisiert werden, welche die ›Kriegskunst‹ beherrschten. Hirngewaschene Soldaten wurden und werden für ›ihre Herren‹ zu Schlächtern und Mördern, werden zwar als ›mutige‹ Männer ausgezeichnet, doch sie sind ganz einfach nur Mörder, Massenmörder und Räuber! Je mehr Städte sie zerstörten, je mehr Tote sie auf den Schlachtfeldern zurückliessen, je mehr Menschen sie in die Flucht schlugen, je mehr verbrannte Erde sie zurückliessen, desto berühmter wurden die Anführer. Sie werden von den Wissenschaftlern die ›Großen‹ genannt, ›bedeutendste Herrscher‹. wie etwa Ramses II, oder Alexander. Doch alle imperialen Herrscher stürzten die Länder ins Chaos und schlussendlich in kürzester Zeit in den Untergang. Doch die Historiker sind des Lobes voll. Unsere Geschichtsbücher sind eine einzige Beweihräucherung der damaligen Tyrannen. Sie sind die Schergen der Vergangenheit wie die ISIS-Terroristen der Gegenwart. Ihr Ziel ist das Morden, das Verbreiten von Angst und Schrecken.
Im oben genannten Film geht es um die Stadt Uruk im Süden Mesopotamiens, dem heutigen Irak.
Hier wollen die Filmemacher die ›Geburt der Zivilisation‹ verorten. Doch diese Zivilisation beginnt bei ihnen erst mit dem Beginn der patriarchalen Herrschaft. Die friedliche, blühende Stadt Uruk wurde seit ihrer Besiedlung im 5. Jahrtausend von Frauen und matriarchalen Priesterköniginnen gelehrt, geführt und geleitetet und die Große Göttin unter dem Namen Inanna verehrt. Es gab in dieser Zeit noch keine männlichen Götter und kein Patriarchat, keine Waffen, keine Befestigungen und keine Kriege.
An der Wende vom 4. ins 3. Jahrtausend kam das Unglück über die Stadt. Sie wurde durch kriegerische, indoeuropäische Invasoren aus den eurasischen Steppen erobert und versklavt. Doch von all dem wissen die Herren Wissenschaftler und Filmemacher, auch der Autor des Artikels im Wikipedia, nichts oder sie verschweigen es absichtlich. Der Film zeigt ausschliesslich die patriarchale Version der Geschichte. Diese beginnt mit dem patriarchalen Mythos nach dem die Stadt Uruk von Gilgamesh, einem männlichen Gott erbaut wurde, der zu 2/3 Gott und 1/3 Mensch gewesen sein soll. Dann wird behauptet: »Von Beginn an gingen mit der Zivilisation Gewalt und Unterdrückung einher.« Die Wissenschaftler verschweigen, dass diese sogenannte Zivilisation, die Folge der kriegerischen Eroberung war und dass das Land davor im Frieden lebte. Es ist haarsträubend, was sich Wissenschaftler leisten. Wie sagte Bertolt Brecht stammt der Satz: ›Wer die Wahrheit nicht weiß, der ist bloß ein Dummkopf. Aber wer sie weiß und sie eine Lüge nennt, der ist ein Verbrecher!‹ Auch das Vertuschen und Unterschlagen der matriarchalen Geschichte des Friedens und der Prosperität ist ein Betrug der Wissenschaftler an der Menschheit. Leider hat dies System in der patriarchalen Geschichtsschreibung.
Das Drama von Aufbau und Zerstörung wiederholt sich seither in Mesopotamien, dem heutigen Irak und Syrien. Die Länder sind andauerndes Kriegsgebiet geblieben, waren ständigen Eroberungen, der Beute- und Machtgier kriegssüchtiger patriarchaler Männer ausgeliefert bis zu den Beutezügen der USA, die dem Erdöl galten und das Land bis zur Unkenntlichkeit bombardierten und zerstörten.

Die renommierte Archäologin Marija Gimbutas schreibt zum traditionellen Begriff ›Zivilisation‹: »Archäologen und Historiker sind davon ausgegangen, dass Zivilisation eine hierarchische politische und religiöse Organisation, Kriegsführung, eine Schicht nach Klassen und hochentwickelte Arbeitsteilung impliziert. Das sind tatsächlich Merkmale androkratischer (von Männern dominierter) Gesellschaften wie der indoeuropäischen; sie gelten jedoch nicht für gynozentrische Gemeinschaften (mit der Mutter/Frau im Mittelpunkt). Ich lehne die Ansicht ab, dass der Begriff Zivilisation nur auf androkratische Kriegergesellschaften angewendet werden dürfe.

Die generative Basis jeder Zivilisation liegt in ihrem jeweiligen Maß an künstlerischem Schaffen, ästhetischen Errungenschaften, immateriellen Werten und Freiheit, die das Leben sinnvoll und Lebenswert machen, sowie in einem ausgeglichenen Verhältnis zwischen den Geschlechtern.« (Marija Gimbutas ›Die Zivilisation der Göttin‹ 1996, S. VIII)

Dokumentiert in:
– ›Es reicht – 5000 Jahre Patriarchat sind genug‹ 2019
– ›Wer waren die Sumerer‹ https://www.doriswolf.com/wp/wer-waren-die-sumerer-2/ und
– ›Die Eroberer aus dem Norden‹ https://www.doriswolf.com/wp/wp-admin/post.phpdoriswolf.comDoris Wolf: Das andere Geschichtsbuch von Doris Wolf » Wer waren die Sumerer?Als Mesopotamien wird das Land in Vorderasien bezeichnet, das zwischen den beiden Flüssen Euphrat und Tigris liegt. Es umfasste den…

Erklärung der NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative zum 74. Jahrestag des Atombombenabwurfes auf Hiroshima

Gepostet am

NatWiss

Der 74. Jahrestag der verbrecherischen und verheerenden Atombombenabwürfe auf Hiroshima und Nagasaki ist Anlass, die Kernaussage zu erneuern: Entweder die Menschheit schafft die Atombombe ab oder die Atombombe die Menschheit.

Wenige Tage nachdem der INF-Vertrag zur Abrüstung von Mittelstreckenraketen beendet wurde, wird das nukleare Wettrüsten verschärft.  Es geht um milliardenteure Modernisierungsprogramme in allen Atomwaffenstaaten, die Entwicklung neuer (Mini-)Atomwaffen in den USA und die vielfältigen Gefahren der weiteren Verbreitung von Atomwaffen, angeheizt durch Spekulationen über Atomwaffenprogramme Irans und Saudi Arabiens.

Daher fordert die NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative:

  • Verhandlungen über eine Nuklearwaffenkonvention zur Abschaffung aller Atomwaffen und als ersten Schritt die Unterzeichnung des Vertrages zum Verbot von Atomwaffen auch durch die Bundesregierung.

Die Aussage der Bundesregierung für eine Welt ohne Atomwaffen – zuletzt erneuert durch den Außenminister Maas – ist unglaubwürdig und dient der Weißwaschung eigener Aufrüstungspolitik solange die Bundesregierung

  • nicht den Abzug der US-Atomwaffen aus Büchel fordert und das entsprechende Abkommen mit der US-Regierung kündigt;
  • die nukleare Teilhabe nicht sofort beendet, stattdessen sogar neue Flugzeuge für diese völkerrechtswidrige Teilhabe an Atomwaffen beschaffen will;
  • den Ersteinsatz von Atomwaffen in der NATO-Doktrin nicht beenden will;
  • sich weiter gegen den UN-Vertrag zum Atomwaffenverbot ausspricht;
  • nicht ausschließt, gemeinsam mit der französischen Regierung perspektivisch über eine europäische Atombombe (mit) zu verfügen.

Wir sagen: Nukleare Abrüstung sieht anders aus! Wir fordern eine eigenständige Politik zur Abrüstung und Abschaffung aller Atomwaffen durch

  • den Verzicht auf die nukleare Teilhabe und die Unterzeichnung des Atomwaffenverbotsvertrages;
  • das Einbringen einer Resolution in die Vereinten Nationen, die alle Atomwaffenstaaten auffordert, auf die atomare Modernisierung zu verzichten und das Geld für die Realisierung der globalen Nachhaltigkeitsziele zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Die NaturwissenschaftlerInnen-Initiative wird sich in diesem Sinne gemeinsam mit allen Initiativen und Organisationen weiterhin aktiv und konkret für eine Welt ohne Atomwaffen einsetzen. Unser Ziel bleibt: Zum 75. Jahrestag von Hiroshima und Nagasaki 2020 müssen die Verhandlungen über eine Nuklearwaffenkonvention beginnen, die alle Atomwaffen verbietet und abschafft.

Südkorea: Immer mehr Frauen lehnen Mutterschaft ab.

Gepostet am

Südkoreas #NoMarriage (KeineHeirat)-Bewegung nimmt Fahrt auf, indem immer mehr Frauen die Mutterschaft ablehnen.

Viele junge Frauen in Südkorea lehnen Ehen und langjährige Rollen für Frauen ab, einschließlich der Mutterschaft
Der wachsende Trend bereitet der Regierung Kopfschmerzen, die mit einer der niedrigsten Geburtenraten der Welt und einem Mangel an Pensionsfonds zu kämpfen hat.

  • Many young women in South Korea are rejecting marriage and long-held roles for women, including motherhood
  • The growing trend is proving a headache for the government, which is grappling with one of the world’s lowest birth rates and a shortfall in pension funding
A woman takes a picture in the snow in Seoul, South Korea. Photo: AP

A woman takes a picture in the snow in Seoul, South Korea. Photo: AP

During the week, Baeck Ha-na works in accounting. On weekends, she is a YouTube star in South Korea, promoting the “live-alone life”.Baeck, whose YouTube channel in English is called “SOLOdarity”, objects to being called a “mi-hon” – someone who is not yet married. She’s part of a growing and determined group of South Korean women who are rejecting marriage and motherhood.

Such decisions are intensifying demographic and economic challenges for the government as the country faces one of the world’s lowest birth rates and a shortfall in pension funding that is getting harder to close with fewer workers joining the labour force.

“Society made me feel like a failure for being in my 30s and not yet a wife or a mother,” Baeck said. “Instead of belonging to someone, I now have a more ambitious future for myself.”

Single minded: forget marriage, South Koreans aren’t even dating

Baeck and her YouTube co-host maintain that the government’s current approach infuriates many women.

They argue that the latest efforts to boost birth rates are “abusive” and “frustrating”, because they fail to address the lack of legal avenues to ensure career development for mothers, or to alleviate financial burdens in raising children.SUBSCRIBE TO This Week in AsiaGet updates direct to your inboxBy registering for these newsletters you agree to our T&C and Privacy Policy

When it comes to the birth rate, South Korea has ranked at the bottom of OECD countries in the Asia-Pacific region since 2016, with that rate going even lower this year.

I don’t want to be used as a tool simply for baby-making. Jung Se-young, YouTuber

According to data compiled by the World Bank, South Korea and Puerto Rico tied for the lowest overall rates as of 2017: Seven children per 1,000 people, followed by Japan and Hong Kong.

Data from South Korea’s national statistics agency in April showed the number of births dropped even further as of February, a 7 per cent decline from a year earlier. In 2019, the number of those dying is expected to outpace the number of those being born, the report said.

A separate report from the agency shows fewer women believe marriage is a must. In 2010, 64.7 per cent of women in South Korea answered that marriage is required for women, while 48.1 per cent gave the same response in 2018.

A mum shops at a supermarket with her child in Seoul. Photo: ReutersShare:

South Korea’s government is reacting by offering incentives to encourage marriage and especially parenthood.

In Sejong, a city designated to be South Korea’s new administrative capital, about 30 single men and women attended their latest event in June. The office’s goal was to encourage working single men and women to take part in “recreational activities and table talks”.

In Gangnam, the Seocho District office held a similar event last year with 50 participants, 14 of whom got matched, the organiser said, adding they plan to hold another session this year.

South Korea’s fertility rate plummets to record low

In a more rural part of the country in South Chungcheong Province, the government has asked single women to submit an application that includes their height, weight, employment history, as well as a recent photo and indicate whether they were married before.South Korea’s President Moon Jae-in launched a committee in December 2017 to tackle the country’s low birth rate, called the Presidential Committee on Ageing Society and Population Policy.

“We are now at the last golden time to fix a serious population problem,” Moon said in a speech launching the committee. “We must now focus on how marrying, giving birth doesn’t limit the lives of women.”

South Korea is offering incentives to encourage marriage among young people. Photo: ReutersShare:

The nation’s latest report on population cited a looming threat for South Korea’s labour force. For a decade following 2017, the number of people within the productive age range is expected to fall by 2.5 million, while the older population will rise by 4.5 million.

An estimated 37.6 million people were measured to be in the potential work force in 2017. By 2067, that number is anticipated to drop by more than half to 17.8 million people, according to the report.

The demographic changes are already having an impact on some businesses.

The government’s biggest problem is they aren’t listening to women – the actual subjects that have to bear the children. Kang Han-byul

More than 20 per cent of all wedding halls in Seoul have closed, including two of the largest venues in wealthier neighbourhoods of Gangnam: Suaviss Wedding Hall, and JS Gangnam Wedding Culture Center, according to a city report.

The Seoul Education Office announced earlier this year that it expects to close three elementary and middle schools by next February, while another middle school is closing and combining its campus with a primary school that is also facing a student shortage.

In Busan, the number of elementary students registered for schools dropped by 26 per cent over the past 9 years from 199,407 students in 2010 to 147,340 students as of March, 2019. The number of middle school students dropped by 43 per cent while high school students dropped by 40 per cent.

Tinder wants to woo Asian users by ditching its image as a dating app for casual sex

Baeck, the YouTuber, says government policies “to force a woman into marriage and childbearing represent a deeply ingrained perception of a woman in our society as an object, not an individual”.

She even refuses to be called “mi-hon,” or “not yet married”, a common Korean term for a single woman. Baeck instead prefers “bi-hon”, which means “to not marry, to not have children”.

Baeck is a member of EMIF, or “Elite without Marriage, I am going Forward”, a network created for women to host discussions, attend film screenings and hold networking events.

Many young women in South Korea are rejecting long-held roles for women, including motherhood. Photo: AFPShare:

At a recent evening meeting of EMIF in western Seoul, nine members moved desks to form a circle to discuss being a “bi-hon”, and the policies created to tackle South Korea’s low birth rate.

“The government’s biggest problem is that they aren’t listening to the women – the actual subjects that have to bear the children and have to raise the children,” said Kang Han-byul, the group’s co-founder.

“They try to sell this idea that a family is beautiful, having children is beautiful, when there’s many unspoken things that actually happen to the woman physically, mentally – which is why these policies will never win us over,” Kang said.

Others also reject long-held roles for women in South Korea, including motherhood.

“This traditional role enforced on us from a boys-only soccer field at school, to a boys’ club in a company office already makes us second-class citizens, and I don’t want to be used as a tool simply for baby-making,” said Jung Se-young, a co-host on Baeck’s YouTube channel.

The reaction to what the women call South Korea’s government’s “tone-deaf” policies have prompted a hashtag on Twitter as well, with women sharing their stories about living a life not focused on marriage and having babies.

“People used to say I can’t do anything without a father in the house,” an anonymous account dedicated to sharing her “bi-hon” life posted on Twitter.

“I bought a silicone gun on my own, and can mend my own windows to block the rain from leaking in. Why did I ever doubt myself before?”Connect with us on Twitter and FacebookThis article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: The #NoMarriage trend adding to economic, fiscal and demographic woes

https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/east-asia/article/3019978/south-koreas-nomarriage-movement-adding-its-economic-woes-young

Stop Surrogacy now! Public Comment to UN Special Rapporteur

Gepostet am

The following public comment was submitted by StopSurrogacyNow to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children.

To the UN Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children,

We are women and men of diverse ethnic, religious, cultural, and socio-economic backgrounds from all regions of the world. We come together to voice our shared concern for women and children who are exploited through surrogacy contract pregnancy arrangements. We are here to answer your call for input regarding the sale and exploitation of children that surrogacy produces.

Together we affirm the deep longing that many have to be parents. Yet, as with most desires, there must be limits. Human rights provide an important marker for identifying what those limits should be. We believe that surrogacy should be stopped because it is an abuse of women’s and children’s human rights.

Identity, Origins and Parentage

The United States is one of few developed countries that has, in some states, legalized commercial surrogacy. Within the United States, there is a patchwork of legislation with some states having no laws, other states allowing commercial surrogacy for a select population (married, heterosexual couples for example), and in other states, like California, truly anything goes. In the world of artificial reproductive techniques, California is the wild west with laws meant only to protect the stakeholders, not the children. Fertility clinics claim that California is one of the easiest places in the world to become a surrogate parent and is thus marketed as one of the friendliest states towards surrogacy. California is truly a place where everyone can become a parent and, regardless of laws in place, fertility clinics are continually allowed to push boundaries and test the limits in bioethics.

Although traditional surrogacy is not explicitly addressed in California surrogacy laws, the practice is still permitted and carelessly regulated. In these instances, children are literally separated, not only from their birth mother, but from their biological mother as well. Intended parents purchase babies from both the gestational and genetic mother.

Prior to 2013, gestational surrogacy in California was governed through case law (specifically Johnson v. Callaert 1993 and Bazzunca v. Bazzunca 1998) and the Uniform Parentage Act. In 2013, the legality of surrogacy in California was officially confirmed with the passage of California Assembly Bill 1217; part of California Family Law Sections 7960-7962.

Case law provided that intended parents in an assisted reproduction arrangement, whether or not biologically related to the resulting child, should be declared the legal parent of the resulting child. The previous legislation in California under the Uniform Parentage Act defines the parent-child relationship as the legal relationship existing between a child and the child’s parents, and it governs proceedings to establish that relationship. Existing law also regulates the practice of surrogacy facilitators in assisted reproduction agreements, including surrogacy agreements.

Current legislation, provides additional guidance relating to the manner in which surrogacy agreements must be executed, when medical procedures can be commenced, and where parental establishment cases may be filed.  In relation to Gestational Surrogacy Agreements, the new law requires that intended parents and a surrogate be represented by separate legal counsel, requires notarization of gestational surrogacy agreements, requires the execution and notarization of an agreement prior to the administration of medications used in assisted reproduction or any embryo transfer procedure, requires the parties to a gestational surrogacy agreement to attest, under penalty of perjury as to their compliance with these provisions, provides that an gestational surrogacy agreement executed in accordance with these provisions is presumptively valid. None of these laws directly protect the child, the product of surrogacy. Our organization has seen time and again how such safeguards—laws, regulations, and contracts—treat children as mere commodities to be ordered, discarded, or abandoned.

In many states, a child must be born before intended parents can lay a rightful custody claim on a child. Additionally, some states force intended parents to go through an adoption process in order to gain custody. However, this is not the case in California. Due to the new bill, indented parents can establish parentage well before a baby is born, even if there is no biological link to the child. The new bill also requires that a copy of the gestational surrogacy agreement be filed with the court as part of the parentage action, seals records of the agreement to all except parties except the intended parents, surrogate, their attorneys and the state Department of Social Services. Once born, the child has no access to any information concerning who his or her biological parents are. The child has no way to know who donated the egg or sperm or whose wombs he or she was born from.

Further, surrogacy in the United States requires no screening or background checks of intended parents, unlike adoption cases. Gestational surrogates, also unlike mothers seeking to surrender their children through adoption, cannot reconsider her decision.

It has been noted that California courts now look at the intent of the contracting parties when faced with a surrogacy dispute, rather than the best interest of the child. We have personally been involved with many surrogacy cases gone wrong. In two cases, surrogate mothers were pregnant with healthy triplets, but the intended parents demanded they reduce the pregnancies. These birth mothers, Melissa Cook and Brittney Rose Torres, were both low-income women who were threatened with breach of contract and told they’d have to return all the money; which of course was already spent paying bills. Neither had money to secure legal representation. Even though these women signed contracts with “termination clauses,” they had a change of heart because they bonded with the babies they were carrying. They could not understand why the intended parents, people who wanted so badly to be parents, would want to end the life of a healthy baby. These children will now grow up with the story of their contract birth arrangement gone bad, perhaps being raised by parents that didn’t want them—if the intended parents even kept the children. This is similar to the famous Baby Gammy case in Thailand. Sadly, in surrogacy friendly states, like California, there are many more legal cases of abuse and exploitation.

Recently, our organization brought to light the story of Jessica Allen, a surrogate mother, also in California, who gave birth to twins for a Chinese couple; surrogacy is illegal in China. Unbeknown to anyone, one of the children was Jessica’s own child. As most surrogates are not allowed to see the babies at birth, it was not until two months later that Jessica was told something was wrong. How could a Caucasian surrogate mother, married to an African-American man, give birth to a Chinese baby and an obviously bi-racial baby? This is a rare event known as superfetation. Jessica and her husband had to fight to get their own child back.

Megan Hoffner from California was a surrogate for two men. She delivered twins via emergency c-section and never saw the boys again. She endured verbal abuse from the millionaires who own and operate the surrogacy agency she worked through and was embroiled in a legal battle just trying to get her medical bills paid. Will these twins grow up knowing that Megan carried them? What will these children think when they are old enough and read about their story in the tabloids?

Sale of Children  

In 2012, Theresa Erickson, a Californian surrogacy broker was sentenced to prison for leading an international baby-selling ring. Erickson, a former board member of the American Fertility Association, recruited surrogates and sent them to Ukraine, where they were implanted with embryos created from donated eggs and sperm. She put the resulting babies up for adoption, telling prospective parents that they were the result of surrogacies in which the original intended parents had backed out. Erickson collected between $100,000 and $150,000 for each baby. After she was sentenced, she told NBC San Diego that her case represented the “tip of the iceberg” of a corrupt industry.

At the very core of surrogacy is a contract where a child, prior to being brought into existence, is being purchased. The surrogate is being paid to surrender a child. If the surrogate does not comply, she is in breach of contract and has to pay all of the money back to the intended parents. No product equals no payment. There is no other way to view this other than selling a child. Individuals and couples are allowed to come from all over the world to exploit American women and purchase children from them. The surrogate mother has no maternal rights and the child has given no informed consent. The surrogate mother has no legal standing. 

It has also become more popular for intended parents to customize the type of child they wish to purchase. Fertility doctors like Dr. Jeffrey Steinberg of California offer preimplantation genetic testing to ensure the consumer (intended parents) gets the product (child) they desire. Sex selection is becoming increasingly common and again, is unregulated. Doctors offering sex selection are hoping to offer more choices in the future, like eye color. Men and women are shopping for designer babies and artificial reproductive techniques like surrogacy facilitate this shopping spree.

One of the birth mothers that our organization spoke with was emotionally abused and blamed when the intended parents “paid for” one boy and one girl and ultrasound showed that they would be having twin boys. The intended parents were outraged throughout the pregnancy, and at birth the twin boys were left alone in the neonatal intensive care unit for days with no support from their new intended parents; still too angry that their purchase was incorrect, not overjoyed that they would be parents of two sweet babies needing love and support as they started their lives as premature infants.

Unnecessary Risks to Children

Of children born through artificial reproduction techniques, artificial insemination, and surrogacy, studies are showing that there is an increased risk for preterm birth and low birth weight babies. Specifically, one study performed in California showed a fourfold increase in preterm births and a 4 to 5-fold increase in stillbirths in pregnancies utilizing ART/AI. Both preterm birth and low birthweight babies have increased risk for long term health risks and morbidities in childhood and later in life. We are allowing the desire to have children trump any best interest of a child by subjecting that child to possible health risks at delivery and beyond.

Surrogate pregnancies also intentionally sever natural maternal bonding that takes place during pregnancy. A study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry found: “surrogacy children showed higher levels of adjustment difficulties at age 7” and “the absence of a gestational connection to the mother may be more problematic.” The study also reported that such difficulties “may have been under-reported by reproductive donation mothers who may have wished to present their children in a positive light.” Young adult children born via anonymous gamete donation suffer serious genealogical bewilderment according to both empirical studies and actual testimonies. A study in the journal Human Reproduction concluded, “Disclosure to children conceived with donor gametes should not be optional.”

Data

Data on surrogacy are elusive, however, the US Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports on data received from fertility clinics across the country. According to that data between 1999 and 2013, about 2% (30,927) of all assisted reproductive technology cycles used a gestational carrier. From 1999 to 2013, gestational carrier cycles resulted in 13,380 deliveries and the birth of 18,400 infants. The most recent data, from 2016, shows the number of transfers for ART cycles using gestational carriers almost tripled, from 1,957 in 2007 to 5,521 in 2016.  From this data, it has been estimated that approximately 200 surrogacies arrangements take place in California each year.

Kelly Martinez is a low income, three-time gestational surrogate. She was lied to, lied about, almost ruined financially, and left for nearly dead. Kelly participated in two international surrogacies. The first for a gay couple in France and then for a heterosexual couple in Spain; surrogacy is illegal in both of these countries. The gay couple threatened that Kelly would have to keep and raise the twins herself if she did not agree to their scheme to lie about having an affair with her in order to secure passports so that the babies could leave the United States. France does not recognize children born by surrogacy as French citizens.

During her twin pregnancy for the Spanish couple, Kelly suffered from severe maternal hypertension and pre-eclampsia (common in surrogate pregnancies, especially when the woman is pregnant with multiple babies). Kelly had to be hospitalized early and had to deliver by emergency C-section at 30 weeks. The Spanish intended parents accused Kelly of deliberately delivering early since her contract stated she would receive her full compensation if she carried the pregnancy to 30 weeks. The couple left the country with their twin boys without paying Kelly’s hospital bills of nearly $8,000. After a year of trying to get her bills paid, Kelly found me through the internet, and I was able to assist her in getting these paid by the fertility agency in the U.S. Kelly spoke with me at the U.N. and traveled with me to Madrid, Spain to speak with members of the Spanish Parliament.

There is very little data on how much surrogacy is happening, how many women are surrogates, how often the same mother is a repeat surrogate, how many babies are born via surrogacy, how many children born via surrogacy are abandoned, how many babies a surrogate gives birth to during one pregnancy (twins, triplets, etc.), or even how these children are doing mentally, socially, and physically as the products of surrogacy.  The data that we do have, although limited, does paint a grim picture; surrogacy is bad for both mothers and children.

Conclusion

Stop Surrogacy Now demands recognition that children conceived for surrogacy are quality-controlled: subject to sex-selection or abandonment for disability or simple change-of-mind. Children produced through surrogacy are objects of contract as well as products of inequitable bargaining power and unregulated markets. Most often, these commercially produced children experience the sudden and complete severance of the natural bond between mother and child and are intentionally deprived of contact with and knowledge of one or both biological parents in direct violation of the U.N.’s Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Signatories to Stop Surrogacy Now demand a complete stop to surrogacy in order to protect women and children worldwide and to end efforts that would seek to legitimize and normalize trafficking children.

We could continue to tell numerous tragic stories from the women and children whom we have met and served.  I hope you see that regulation can never protect against or dictate maternal-child bonding. Regulation can never prevent superfetation from occurring. Regulation can never protect the children born, designed, or abandoned when adults change their minds. Regulation is not the answer; abolition of surrogacy is.

We will leave you with the words of Jessica Kern, a child of gestational surrogacy and advocate against it:

“Personally, as a product of surrogacy, I take most offense that typically this process is done with the intent of separating the child from their biology without guaranteeing the product any right to know where they come from.”

“Surrogacy is a great way to circumnavigate the intensive home studies that are required with traditional adoption… after years of physical abuse by my adoptive mother and emotional abuse by both my adoptive mother and biological father I was ultimately removed from their custody.”

“As product surrogacy, it’s hard not to be aware that there is a price tag. There is an awareness that, in essence, you were bought by the family that you grow up with. You are a product at the end of the day.”

On behalf of StopSurrogacyNow representing over 20 NGOs worldwide and a membership of over 20,000 signers,

Jennifer Lahl, R.N., M.A. 
President, the Center for Bioethics and Culture and Founding Signature of StopSurrogacyNow  

Kallie Fell, B.S.N., M.S.
Research Associate, the Center for Bioethics and Culture and signer of StopSurrogacyNow