Who gets to be a parent? Italy has decided on a simple answer: the straight and fertile. After an 84-58 vote, Italy has fully criminalised surrogate pregnancies, barring thousands of would-be parents from ever having children of their own. The reasons for the surrogacy ban are straightforward. Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her party, the Brothers of Italy, oppose the “LGBT lobby”. They also want to enshrine the “dignity of the woman” in law, and they wish to discourage what League Senator Elena Murelli calls the “child trade”, protecting children from exploitation and unseemly parenting arrangements.
It is not clear that banning surrogacy accomplishes any of these goals. Opponents tend to argue that homosexual parents will be bad for the children they raise. It is certainly taboo, but the evidence that having homosexual parents harms children is at best weak. When I reviewed the evidence on the impacts of surrogacy on children’s outcomes in mid-2023, I found that the only outcome that looked to be meaningfully differentiated between children raised by homosexual parents and children raised in traditional families was that the children from homosexual families were more likely to themselves be homosexuals.
There are those who hold that homosexual parents are a problem even if they make fine parents. The reasoning here is quite pressing in the case of Italy, because one of the most convincing reasons for conservative Italians to reject homosexual parenting is that Pope Francis has denounced it. The Pope may have valid religious reasons for denunciation, but, curiously, when he remarked on the practice in 2015, his arguments seemed to be focused on child welfare rather than scriptural prohibition.
At the time, Pope Francis remarked that: “Children mature seeing their father and mother like this; their identity matures being confronted with the love their father and mother have, confronted with this difference [between the sexes].” But, unless researchers are missing a crucial outcome for him to base his case on, it seems Francis is just wrong: children do not need the example of a male and a female parent to mature normally.
If he were right, what should we make of couples with butch women and effeminate men? Or couples with two masculine or feminine, but still heterosexual partners? Plenty of couples feature men acting in feminine ways and women acting in masculine ways, and gay couples can feature parents acting whichever way too. Will the children of these arrangements turn out poorly because their parents don’t display typical sex differences in behaviour? What about the outcomes for the children of widowed mothers or fathers or orphans? Unfortunately for potential LGBT parents, Pope Francis’s word — however misinformed — is a more than sufficient justification for Catholic opposition to homosexual families.
Regardless of what Pope Francis thinks, homosexual parents should barely factor into the discussion of reasons to support or oppose surrogacy as they’re a slim minority among its users. The typical estimate provided for Italy is that 90% or more of the surrogacy-seekers are heterosexual couples. This is not very far from the estimates from other countries, although it should be noted that homosexuals are a growing portion of global surrogacy-seekers.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI’m afraid this piece reads like a set of examples of fallacious reasoning. There are too many to tackle them all, so just one for starters:
This is then followed by a set of “I know somebody” type arguments, as in: if this is true, how come my friend Bill is completely normal. As if this refutes the whole argument.
The real question, of course, is whether this is generally true.
And of course there is the question of what you mean by “mature normally”.
Well put, David. There’s a saying I once heard which I think fits: ” ‘For example’ is no proof.”
We all know “…someone who” – you do, I do. It’s irrelevant
Meloni hasn’t banned surrogacy in Italy. It was already illegal. The article dodges accurately explaining what has been banned. Instead it burys the facts in a hyperlink.
Meloni has made it illegal to seek surrogacy abroad, which was a loophole in the existing ban. A loophole largely created by the advent of the modern internet, which isn’t the best way for public policy to evolve.
There is a debate to be had about whether the existing ban on surrogacy is sensible. But the article doesn’t debate that. It is narrowly focused on closing a loophole and deploys arguments based on the false impression that surrogacy was already legal.
Instead of surrogacy, Italy uses legal adoption to manage the “transfer” of parenting between consenting adults. While not as flexible as surrogacy, in terms of LGB parental genetics, it isn’t different: one of you is the genetic parent, one of you isn’t. If you are Italian and want someone else to have a child for you and they agree, you can do this and you can adopt the child. This has been the case for ordinary Italians.
One major difference between surrogacy and adoption is in surrogacy the emotional needs of the birthing mother play second fiddle. There is increasing evidence of international coercion exploiting women outside of Europe’s legal reach. With adoption there is a robust legal and post-partum healthcare framework for birthing mothers, the intentions and homemaking capability of the adoptive parents is reviewed by social services, and it makes it far harder for “womb shopping” to exploit poor women.
What is possibly a positive move to protect vulnerable women in poor countries and prevent children becoming a consumer market, is instead seen by the author only through the lens of middle class LGBT “I want!”. And that is quite telling.
Great post, thank you. We needed this clarification.
In other words, the author is trying to pull a fast one. This happens rather too often on Unherd. Particularly from people with ideological axes to grind. But at least there are commenters prepared to fact check.
unherd and the author should do some research and, if Nell Clover’s comment is correct, then the author should issue a clarification or retraction. The article certainly gives the casual reader the impression that the ban on surrogate pregnancies is new.
Hello. The link in the article above takes you to a Reuters report which explains surrogacy has been illegal in Italy since 2004. Editors know a link is enough to reassure most readers that an article is properly sourced and accurate, even if the cross-reference contradicts the article. This fraud is now common even in academia because even academic readers rarely check cross-referenced sources. Since the link to a third party website would be at least a sub-editorial decision, unHerd would have been aware that this article was misleading. Indeed, it might be deliberately so to elicit comments such as my own – deliberately wrong to generate complaints and clicks. Either way, I’m sure this type of “journalism” isn’t why unHerd readers subscribe.
I’ve done this checking before, though I didn’t this time, and found exactly what you say. Sometimes the research linked to actually refutes what is being said. It’s shocking practice. We should all get into the habit of calling it out.
Yes, atrocious journalism and a lazy editor. I am cancelling my Unherd subscription.
Thanks for the additional information. UnHerd could become the most popular news site on the planet if they adopted a “counterpoint” format. The author writes this article, and they have someone on the other side give the counter arguments (instead of relying on commenters to do so). It would stop the author of the first article from trying to pull a fast one (knowing that a knowledgable rebuttal was coming), and we would all get to see both sides of the story.
I was struck by the similarity of this to trans and other arguments. There is an implicit argument which takes the form: in the past we could not do x; now we can do x; some people want to do x; therefore they should be allowed to do x unless there are overwhelming arguments against it.
You can apply this to trans, cosmetic surgery, surrogacy, transhumanism, even weight loss. And in a sense the argument seems unassailable (at least within our current moral frame of reference).
And yet many of us are deeply uncomfortable with it, in a way that does not seem reducible to being simply old fashioned or prejudiced. At heart, I think our concern is about a kind of hubris – a fear that simply doing as we like without any reference to what is natural or right, outside of our own self centred desires, will lead to ill.
The writer is complete missing the point. Opposition to gay couples doesn’t rest on homophobia because gay couples can adopt and I have no objection to this although I am against surrogacy. The fact that paid surrogates cite altruistic motives also needs to be taken with a pinch of salt – it is human nature to justify our actions in terms that make us look good and paid surrogacy only exists because so few women are prepared to participate otherwise. By its nature surrogacy is exploitative and dehumanising.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/maiden-mother-matriarch-with-louise-perry/id1671451793?i=1000666936513
Listen to this podcast. Very interesting and informative. Not just hearsay’s and unsubstantiated statements.
Quite a different read to Julie Bindell’s recent Telegraph article on the surrogacy trade, who it seems has done a proper research instead of a wishy-washy opinion piece.
The “two consenting adults” argument does NOT stand well in a million dollar trade with agencies, fertility clinics, surrogates, lawyers, and a little human being catering for those adults’ whims and perceived rights.
War-torn Ukraine is full of surrogacy “leftovers” – because that’s how those babies are treated. “Customer changed their mind” you know as if a human was just a bespoke kitchen cabinet you don’t need to pick up once finished.
Surrogate mothers are mostly from dire poor countries, they are desperate for money; what is it if not explotation and human trade?
Sorry but this article is a list of very poor and flaky arguments, not sure if it’s worth the editor’s money as a semi-professional journalistic input.
Surrogacy exploits vulnerable women and uses them like breeders in Handmaids
Tale: face up to it.
Surrogacy is exploiting vulnerable women like breeders in “the handmaid’s tale”: face
It!
“Who gets to be a parent? Italy has decided on a simple answer: the straight and fertile.”
Sounds sensible to me.
It seems straight an fertile Italians aren’t having many kids, hence their plummeting birthrate.
Nature made that decision millions of years ago; Italy is just acknowledging reality.
Putting a woman into a surrogacy situation makes her a device or appliance. It’s wrong on a very basic level. It should be outlawed world-wide.
This is the basic lie of the gay view. They cannot have children save with the cooperation of a third party. Lesbians must acquire sperm. Gay men must force a woman to carry a child for 9 months.
According to the Bible, God forced Mary to carry a child for 9 months. That’s very wrong too, then.
No forcing involved. ‘Fiat mihi sicut verbum tuum.’
There’s no forcing involved in the majority of moderm surrogacy cases either.
I do not believe in the bible or the christian deities, so your comment is irrelevant. The issue is fundamental treatment of others, and is not bound a myth or religious delusion.
Your comment is even less relevant, since mine was made entirely in the context of religious influence from the papacy.
I’m well aware of the wider arguments, thanks.
You have made no case that there had been religious influence from the papacy, hence your comment is irrelevant on its own terms. The Italians have a long history of taking even less notice of the papacy than do most Catholics.
I’ve upvoted you for a witty riposte. Shame you went on to Labour it as if it was a serious point.
Boy, God must have really hated salamanders, some of whom gestate for three years. What did they do to make God so angry?
Surely “acquiring sperm” can’t me that hard. Many men are quite generous with it.
It’s possible that Italy may be more influenced by the opinions of the Pope than most other countries, so here’s the thing:
If the Pope were to use “valid religious reasons” for surrogacy, he can get his instructions straight from his God. Jesus Christ, according to scripture, is the Son of God, and Mary a surrogate mother.
Go figure, Francis.
God according to Christians was Jesus’ father. I have never heard Him described as Jesus’ mother, so how on earth was Mary a surrogate mother? Even if Jesus shared none of Mary’s genetic heritage, he was raised by Mary. He lived with her until he was thirty. In surrogacy the baby is whipped from his mother straight away. We give puppies eight weeks with their mothers, but babies born of surrogacy, not even a day.
You seem to be inferring that i described the Christian god as Jesus’ mother, which is simply nonsense.
I can, however, understand those with severe cases of religiosity being blind to the implications of what is described in scripture. And there’s no getting away from the issue of Mary being used by the Christian god as a surrogate to carry “his only child”.
You’re forgetting the Immaculate Conception. God is the Father who impregnated Mary. Thus, Jesus was genetically Mary’s son.
Using reasoning based on the deity is complete rubbish. If you believe in the Christian mythos, Jesus falls outside the rules for normal persons, because he is God. So your “reasoning” is completely worthless from the start.
Ah, typical “special pleading”. I suspect you know there can be no exceptionalism introduced here, yet in seeking to do so you undermine your case. The scriptural rationale is designed to induce exactly the kind of response you’ve made, and it won’t wash.
Mary was not a surrogate mother.. She was impregnated by the father, carried the baby to term, gave birth and raised the child as her own, as indeed he was.
So missing the point here. As other comments states, women aren’t appliances one should use as baby ovens. Having kids is a biological function, and parenting possibly a great way to spend your life but it’s not a human right.
Kant’s notion of the “categorical imperitive” is key. This idea is that humans have inherent worth, and cannot be used as objects by others. The most fundamental relationship is mother to child. Surrogacy removes the infant from the mother. It is fundamentally wrong.
Voluntarily depriving a child of his/her mother should not be encouraged.
Agreed. A lot of people are talking about the surrogate mother being exploted but I’m more concerned about the child. Pregnancy creates a strong bond between a baby and its mother and that shouldn’t be broken.
Terrible take
Unherd is becoming more herd by the day. My subs renewal is a growing question mark
I agree. This is a perfect example of “herd” article. What’s going on at Unherd?
‘Who gets to be a parent? Nature has decided on a simple answer: the straight and fertile.’
Fixed it.
‘These scenarios are rare, but they do not constitute a good argument against surrogacy anyway’ – yes, actually, yes they do…
Do not complain that the machine does not work if you put the plug in the wrong socket. Ms. Clover is spot on.
Just what Italy needs for their ridiculously low birth rate, even more restrictions . Who cares how the babies are made, they need many more to not go extinct.
Sure they, like every Western or ‘advanced’ country has too low a birth rate but the answer is not surrogacy or IVF or artificial wombs or any other disgusting and immoral tech ‘solutions’. Not only will they not work but their cost in further destruction of humanity and community will be huge.
they need many more to not go extinct.
To make who not go extinct?
Italians.
That doesn’t even make sense.
They need to bring in more migrants. Muslims are good in that regard – they have lots of kids.
The Vatican wouldn’t be pleased, but that’s probably what will happen anyways, I don’t see western countries like Italy increasing their birthrate anytime soon, quite the opposite is happening.
Annoying the Vatican is an additional benefit.
In a world of 8,000,000,000+ humans, we are not going extinct. Increasing numbers of said humans are losing their minds, however.
This is an abysmally bad article. Several comments, especially those by Nell Clover, already explain why, so I won’t repeat them. I just want to stress that the author’s perspective completely ignores the damage that surrogacy does to women and, most especially, to children.
Italian feminists have supported the new legislation: see https://feministpost.it/en/
Good to see feminists taking the side of the genuinely exploited women in this, and not the women, and men, doing the exploiting. I know that sounds a bit backhanded – but feminists are not always as aware as they should be of the real power and privilege dynamics outside of their preferred male v female framework.
Surrogacy exploits poor women. Period. Pregnancy is not without risks, including death. Births can be difficult and cause lasting damage—just ask my sister. Once the baby is born and handed to the couple, sometimes within seconds, the surrogate is on her own. Any physical damage to her body becomes her problem. I guess she can use her cash to repair the damage. Most surrogates are in poor countries and work for international rings where business is booming. Some of the women are housed in large dormitories and are closely watched, lest she do anything to risk harming her valuable baby. If there were legitimate , licensed businesses that took care of the women, including medical treatment for pregnancy or birth complications, I might change my mind. But right now it’s nothing more than a lucrative, exploitative business Look, I sympathize with couples who can’t have children, but why not adoption? Countless children are born and surrendered to the state. (There will ba a lot more in states that prohibit abortions.) They need loving parents, who will see that baby as their very own.
I suggest more research into cloning and artificial wombs, which can receive a fertilized egg and grow it to maturity, for those who cannot have a baby themselves. This would be of great use to countries such as South Korea, a nation in which only 235,000 babies (approximately) were born last year, in a population of 50,000,000; the lowest fertility rate on the planet, about .735 children per woman.
I don’t think artificial wombs avoid the “babies as a commodity” problem. If anything, even more so the child is being grown like a product.
I do have a recollection of a BBC(?) show in the early 80’s where they had set it in a future where the mother was doing exactly that. The baby was being grown in an artificial womb tank and they had her sitting in a bed beside the tank on the birth day as a kind of ceremonial of “having the baby.” Some of the pictures you get now of gay men posing with their new surrogate child with one of them in bed as if they just delivered remind me of that (Pete Buttigieg and his partner did a photo like that for example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pete-chasten-buttigieg-photo-new-babies/ ).
Who do you think would raise these lab-grown babies? S. Korea’s low birthrate is the result of women choosing not to marry or become mothers. They may be part of the 4B movement of women who won’t date, marry, become mothers or conform to rigid, expensive personal appearance standards. With so many Korean men, both single and married, using spy cameras to film women in bathrooms and uploading the footage to porn sites, women have stopped trusting men. And yes, men film their own wives and put them on the internet. So, women are responding by renouncing men altogether.
In Korea, women have to give their height, weight and a photo with job applications, and this compels women to undergo skin lightening and spend a huge amount of time and money trying to conform to the Western beauty standards required of them by employers.
Your lab grown baby idea is only going to work if men stay home to care for the babies.
Tesla has created a lifelike robot that mimics human behavior and appearance. While not perfect, it may be possible to raise these babies in large dormitories, using a combination of robotic and human labor. Inefficiencies can be trimmed away, etcetera. I’m suggesting this not because it’s an optimal outcome, but for countries with plummeting birthrates, solutions such as these (not yet achievable with current tech) may be the best of a number of bad outcomes.
Who gets to be a parent? Italy has decided on a simple answer: the straight and fertile.
Guess what! Only the straight and fertile can actually make babies. (I’d add gays and lesbians who can endure sex with people they’re not that attracted too–and in the past such gays and lesbians were not that uncommon.) The alternative is a rickety, stupefyingly expensive, and essentially exploitative Rube Goldberg setup involving drugs, invasive surgery, gross underpayment and mistreatment of Third World women (see India before that country banned surrogacy), and most of all, the pretense that a child has no mother, or that her biological mother’s name must be obliterated, and that the “surrogate”–the woman who spent nine months carrying the child in her womb, is merely a nonentity whose name must be buried and forgotten. Kudos to Italy!
Louise Perry’s podcast ‘Maiden, Mother, Matriarch “ offered an informative viewpoint recently on this subject. The research quoted described some appalling practises by the surrogacy industry.
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/maiden-mother-matriarch-with-louise-perry/id1671451793?i=1000666936513
What if you go through all of these convoluted arrangements to have a child, but the child grows up to become a New Hitler?
You would have egg on your face then?
….or a New Trump!
Truly an idiotic question. Parenthood of any sort is a crapshoot.
The religious argument against surrogacy has nothing to do with anything Jorge the Heretic might have to say.
The religious argument is in accepting God’s Will for your life. In the Catholic faith, we believe Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament (wedding feast at Cana), between one man and one woman who mutually and complementarily complete each other (becoming one) and open to procreation.
The fact that the secular world insists on ignoring the purpose of marriage, and somehow then justifies surrogacy by a want for a child by heterosexual couples simply neglects the valid option of adoption and the truth of the matter that homosexuals cannot procreate naturally and thus should never be afforded the privilege and responsibility of rearing children.
Even if you hold no faith based position, the distortion of natural law should be seen as the abomination that it is.
I stopped reading because the straw clutching was getting just too much.
Just one passage:
“It’s possible to argue that wanting your own genetic children rather than adopting is itself an expression of vanity, but it’s hard to humour that idea given just how absolutely innate wanting to care for your own children is.”
Clearly the surrogate mother is neither vain nor does she have any innate desire to care for her own children. She is just an appliance.
Oh dear…