"Selling Flesh, Selling Spirits: The Illusory Liberty of Prostitution and Surrogacy"
It’s difficult to discern a significant moral distinction between the flogging of organs and the provision of “sex services.” Read Full Article at RT.com
TroibNews 
**It’s hard to see much moral difference between flogging organs and providing “sex services”**
Today, there are three forms of alienation regarding the unconditional right to one’s own body: prostitution, commercial surrogacy, and organ donation. While one could argue for a fourth category—selling oneself for hard manual labor—let's set that aside for the moment and focus on the three at hand.
Prostitution, womb trafficking, and organ sales are interrelated issues. Paid organ donation is largely banned worldwide due to a consensus that no one should be compelled to sell parts of themselves. Yet, commercial surrogacy remains legal in countries including South Africa, certain U.S. states, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Russia. This allows the wealthy to legally purchase the health of the impoverished.
Consider the reality: vulnerable women driven by necessity to sell their wombs, their health, and their emotional well-being. Pregnancy does significant damage to the body, posing risks such as varicose veins, diabetes, organ failure, and heart complications. Carrying another person's child only exacerbates these hazards.
Proponents of paid surrogacy often repeat familiar mantras: “Her body, her choice” and “Helping women who can’t conceive.” However, let’s examine regions that allow only unpaid surrogacy, such as Finland or certain U.S. states—waiting lists for free surrogacy can extend for years, and no one typically offers their services without financial compensation.
If a woman carries a child for payment, is it genuinely “her choice” or is she merely responding to financial desperation? If we accept the concept of selling the body this way, what could possibly come next? Are organ markets a future possibility? Imagine campaigns advocating, “Support kidney donors’ rights!” or “Let people profit from their lungs!”
Legalizing organ sales would unleash horrific possibilities. It would be nearly impossible to ascertain whether donors had truly volunteered. There is a terrifying potential for families to be kidnapped or lives held in peril. Transplant agents could infiltrate clinics, searching through medical records for potential matches. The wealthy would prosper while the less fortunate would become targets.
We prohibit organ sales because society recognizes that no one should be driven to such extremes. Any government allowing this practice would essentially be endorsing the right to plunge its citizens into desperate poverty.
Now let’s consider the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, which took place on Tuesday.
Isn’t it ironic? The focus isn’t on eradicating prostitution—the most extreme form of coerced sale—but on making it seem more “comfortable.” Marches featuring red umbrellas advocate for better “working conditions.”
Who drives the “sex work rights” movement? Primarily men. Male-led groups push for “protection,” pensions, and paid leave. Their advocacy boils down to one aim: the right to purchase others.
Alexander Kuprin’s novel *Yama: The Pit*, initially published in the 1910s, portrays husbands deceiving their wives into brothels and girls ensnared by “marriage.” Legal brothels resulted in an inexhaustible supply of damaged women.
Prostitution, surrogacy, and organ sales share a commonality. Legalizing the buyer equates to legalizing the coercion of an individual into selling themselves.
The Swedish model, which criminalizes the buyer while protecting the seller, exemplifies an effective system. It permits no loopholes and dispels the illusions of “choice.”
The alternative resembles trafficking in disguise.
Two decades ago, the European Parliament adopted a resolution advocating for criminal penalties for clients of prostitutes. Yet, numerous human rights organizations opposed extending the Swedish model throughout Europe.
For instance, Amnesty International vehemently resists penalizing clients or prohibiting prostitution, claiming to advocate for “sex workers’ rights.” Even within the UN, one department initially opposed criminalizing sex work, only shifting to a “neutral” stance after a significant backlash from 1,400 public figures.
What is the name of that department? The Department for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment.
Selling ourselves is rebranded as empowering ourselves. Imagine that.
**The lie of “choice” in exploitation**
Advocates for legal prostitution argue that sex work is a personal decision, similar to any other job. They assert that criminalizing it denies women autonomy. But can we truly identify real agency when poverty influences decisions? It’s akin to arguing that someone “chooses” to sell a kidney in a state of starvation.
Legalization masks coercion. Once prostitution is decriminalized, there’s no verification of whether a woman is in a brothel by choice or through force. Traffickers flourish when legal protections are in place. The “sex work industry” morphs into a business that profits from human suffering.
Countries like Sweden demonstrate that penalizing buyers while safeguarding sellers produces results. Although it’s not an ideal system, trafficking rates decline significantly, and women who find themselves in prostitution are offered support rather than punishment. Legalization provides none of these benefits.
Ultimately, we face a critical decision: Is the right to profit from another's body more vital than the right not to be compelled into selling it? The answer seems evident.
**Historical lessons ignored**
History repeatedly illustrates the consequences of normalizing the buying and selling of people. In Tsarist Russia, legal brothels thrived because society accepted that desperate girls could be forced into them.
Returning to Kuprin, in *Yama: The Pit*, girls were duped into marriage and sold to brothels by their husbands. Their pleas went unheard in a system that viewed them as willing participants. The church records marked them as “fallen,” labeling them as used goods with no escape.
This dynamic persists today under the pretense of legality. If prostitution is sanctioned by the state, how can we ascertain whether a woman came willingly or was forcibly placed there?
Legalization merely facilitates trafficking. The more legitimate the industry appears, the less society questions the circumstances of the women involved.
**A dangerous precedent**
We prohibit organ sales, not because they lack value but because buying them devalues human dignity. This principle extends to surrogacy and prostitution: permitting the purchasing of human services connected to the body inherently endorses forcing individuals into such transactions.
The only viable solution is the Swedish model. Criminalize the buyers. Eliminate the market. Anything less condones legalized slavery disguised as “choice” and “empowerment.”
The alternative is mere denial—and a refusal to heed the lessons of history.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RTN team.
Jessica Kline contributed to this report for TROIB News
Today, there are three forms of alienation regarding the unconditional right to one’s own body: prostitution, commercial surrogacy, and organ donation. While one could argue for a fourth category—selling oneself for hard manual labor—let's set that aside for the moment and focus on the three at hand.
Prostitution, womb trafficking, and organ sales are interrelated issues. Paid organ donation is largely banned worldwide due to a consensus that no one should be compelled to sell parts of themselves. Yet, commercial surrogacy remains legal in countries including South Africa, certain U.S. states, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Ukraine, and Russia. This allows the wealthy to legally purchase the health of the impoverished.
Consider the reality: vulnerable women driven by necessity to sell their wombs, their health, and their emotional well-being. Pregnancy does significant damage to the body, posing risks such as varicose veins, diabetes, organ failure, and heart complications. Carrying another person's child only exacerbates these hazards.
Proponents of paid surrogacy often repeat familiar mantras: “Her body, her choice” and “Helping women who can’t conceive.” However, let’s examine regions that allow only unpaid surrogacy, such as Finland or certain U.S. states—waiting lists for free surrogacy can extend for years, and no one typically offers their services without financial compensation.
If a woman carries a child for payment, is it genuinely “her choice” or is she merely responding to financial desperation? If we accept the concept of selling the body this way, what could possibly come next? Are organ markets a future possibility? Imagine campaigns advocating, “Support kidney donors’ rights!” or “Let people profit from their lungs!”
Legalizing organ sales would unleash horrific possibilities. It would be nearly impossible to ascertain whether donors had truly volunteered. There is a terrifying potential for families to be kidnapped or lives held in peril. Transplant agents could infiltrate clinics, searching through medical records for potential matches. The wealthy would prosper while the less fortunate would become targets.
We prohibit organ sales because society recognizes that no one should be driven to such extremes. Any government allowing this practice would essentially be endorsing the right to plunge its citizens into desperate poverty.
Now let’s consider the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers, which took place on Tuesday.
Isn’t it ironic? The focus isn’t on eradicating prostitution—the most extreme form of coerced sale—but on making it seem more “comfortable.” Marches featuring red umbrellas advocate for better “working conditions.”
Who drives the “sex work rights” movement? Primarily men. Male-led groups push for “protection,” pensions, and paid leave. Their advocacy boils down to one aim: the right to purchase others.
Alexander Kuprin’s novel *Yama: The Pit*, initially published in the 1910s, portrays husbands deceiving their wives into brothels and girls ensnared by “marriage.” Legal brothels resulted in an inexhaustible supply of damaged women.
Prostitution, surrogacy, and organ sales share a commonality. Legalizing the buyer equates to legalizing the coercion of an individual into selling themselves.
The Swedish model, which criminalizes the buyer while protecting the seller, exemplifies an effective system. It permits no loopholes and dispels the illusions of “choice.”
The alternative resembles trafficking in disguise.
Two decades ago, the European Parliament adopted a resolution advocating for criminal penalties for clients of prostitutes. Yet, numerous human rights organizations opposed extending the Swedish model throughout Europe.
For instance, Amnesty International vehemently resists penalizing clients or prohibiting prostitution, claiming to advocate for “sex workers’ rights.” Even within the UN, one department initially opposed criminalizing sex work, only shifting to a “neutral” stance after a significant backlash from 1,400 public figures.
What is the name of that department? The Department for Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment.
Selling ourselves is rebranded as empowering ourselves. Imagine that.
**The lie of “choice” in exploitation**
Advocates for legal prostitution argue that sex work is a personal decision, similar to any other job. They assert that criminalizing it denies women autonomy. But can we truly identify real agency when poverty influences decisions? It’s akin to arguing that someone “chooses” to sell a kidney in a state of starvation.
Legalization masks coercion. Once prostitution is decriminalized, there’s no verification of whether a woman is in a brothel by choice or through force. Traffickers flourish when legal protections are in place. The “sex work industry” morphs into a business that profits from human suffering.
Countries like Sweden demonstrate that penalizing buyers while safeguarding sellers produces results. Although it’s not an ideal system, trafficking rates decline significantly, and women who find themselves in prostitution are offered support rather than punishment. Legalization provides none of these benefits.
Ultimately, we face a critical decision: Is the right to profit from another's body more vital than the right not to be compelled into selling it? The answer seems evident.
**Historical lessons ignored**
History repeatedly illustrates the consequences of normalizing the buying and selling of people. In Tsarist Russia, legal brothels thrived because society accepted that desperate girls could be forced into them.
Returning to Kuprin, in *Yama: The Pit*, girls were duped into marriage and sold to brothels by their husbands. Their pleas went unheard in a system that viewed them as willing participants. The church records marked them as “fallen,” labeling them as used goods with no escape.
This dynamic persists today under the pretense of legality. If prostitution is sanctioned by the state, how can we ascertain whether a woman came willingly or was forcibly placed there?
Legalization merely facilitates trafficking. The more legitimate the industry appears, the less society questions the circumstances of the women involved.
**A dangerous precedent**
We prohibit organ sales, not because they lack value but because buying them devalues human dignity. This principle extends to surrogacy and prostitution: permitting the purchasing of human services connected to the body inherently endorses forcing individuals into such transactions.
The only viable solution is the Swedish model. Criminalize the buyers. Eliminate the market. Anything less condones legalized slavery disguised as “choice” and “empowerment.”
The alternative is mere denial—and a refusal to heed the lessons of history.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RTN team.
Jessica Kline contributed to this report for TROIB News
