Danielle Jordan Menninger
Associate Professor at the University of Paris-1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (*)
In view of the revision bioethics laws, debate hardens between supporters and opponents of surrogacy or, for understanding all of the legalization of the practice of mothers por ¬ cooker. But the ban is the rule. The Civil Code, incorporating the first bioethics law of 1994 provides that the human body ¬ hand, its elements and its products can not be a pecuniary right that conventions have the effect of a confer ¬ rer heritage value to the human body, its elements or its products are zero, and any agreement por ¬ both procreation or surrogate gestation.
Large institutions such as the Council of State, Office ¬ tary of Scientific and Technological Agency of Biomedicine or the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Life Sciences and Health have recently pro ¬ nounced against modification of the rule of law. The debate through political parties, both right and left.
Comforted by the medical developments suggesting that "anything is possible", supporters of the legalization of surrogacy defend a position that is justified by the need to im ¬ périeuse mentor practices which, anyway, would be destined to multiply. If we follow their approach, it is for civil law, to respond to social demands of the "absolute right to the child," a vision "modern, progressive ¬ sister" of society. It would oversee what they define as a gift, even if they recognize the need to provide a com ¬ pensation financial, economic as compensation for services rendered.
In reality, this would be a setback for society and for women's rights. Sham
legal. The legalization of surrogate mothers, pretext to regulate excesses, is a sham legal because it does not resolve the inevitable conflicts between the couple sponsor and owner of his mother womb. There would always be difficulties potentially dra ¬ matic for one as for the other, if people chan ¬ gent mind during pregnancy or childbirth, or in case of subsequent disagreement over compensation. It's an illusion to think that the social demand and the rule of law must always agree ¬ wind. Legalization would only legally vali ¬ der fait accompli on the pretext that Other countries allow the practice. However, the situation varies lar ¬ ment in different countries: Belgium, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Russia and Greece are in favor, and some U.S. states, Argentina, Brazil or Iran , while Switzerland, Austria, Spain, Italy and Germany prohibit surrogacy.
The debate is not that pseudomodernistes face of pseudo-archaic, for or against an "absolute right to the child", without at any time the psychological consequences for the biological mother and child n 'have been analyzed.
Above all, this is a market procreative, not a gift as part of human relationships become altruistic. Surrogacy can be a source of income for poor women in developed countries, alternative or complementary ¬ mentary to jobs at home that are often the only opportunity for those who are unemployed. In addition, internationally, and in a global context, there is an ex ¬ ¬ rus exploitation of uterine poor women in developing countries for the benefit of the cradles of the wealthy couples of the North. Do not believe that legalizing the practice in France, could end Current traffic between the North and South. Interest merchants are there, among sites, agencies and companies, between countries, between couples ¬ sponsors and uterus of women for hire. But deviant practices may in no case justify a deviation ethics.
Finally, the reference to abuse the right to abortion put forward by proponents of the legalization of surrogacy should not deceive ourselves: what would be ¬ regression for the rights of women become and mothers - mothers always - by a commercial exploitation of their uterus. This would be a regression designed in a societal perspective based on the liberal "anything goes because it is lifting a ban," further step in the confusion of values, money and ethics for which n ' is a system of "hire-belly."
(*) and former adviser to the cabinet of Lionel Jospin.
"It's an illusion to think that the social demand and the rule of law must always agree. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment