Surrogacy (not Equal marriage); Should it be banned?

Kiwi in IE

Right there is a lot of talk about this topic at the moment and certain factions of society are currently very concerned about surrogacy verses a child's 'right' to have a biological mother and father.

For the purpose of this thread, I am going to be deliberately obtuse and assume that the current concern expressed about surrogacy is related to surrogacy itself, rather than the gender of the potential parents.

Children born via surrogacy would not exist at all had surrogacy not been available to their parents. So my question is this; Is having a biological mother and father so important that it is better to not ever exist at all, than to be born to a surrogate using donated egg/sperm/both? Is it so terrible to grow up with parents (even if they are the best parents in the world) who are not your biological parents, that it is better to not ever be born?

eviltwin

No. If I want to offer myself as a surrogate or egg donor I should be able to do so. I do think it needs regulation, mandatory counselling and all that, no payment should change hands. But as a concept I have no issues with it.

fizzypish

Jasus. Make it easier (less corrupt and better regulated) to adopt kids from foreign (or our own?) countries. If you really want a child and are unable to have one yourself, the genetics of the child should not be your main concern. This is going to sound horrible but we don't need to create extra people, there are plenty of neglected/spares in the world. Christ that sounds bad.....

Sheep Lover

All this talk of eggs has me staving, any chance of a boiled egg OP?

osarusan

Bear in mind that there are different kinds of surrogacy:

traditional surrogacy in which the surrogate is also the biological mother of the child, as the eggs of female-parent-to-be are not usable.

gestational surrogacy, in which the parents are also the biological parents of the child (the biological mother would not be able to carry pregnancy for whatever reason, but the egg is fertilised before being transferred to the surrogate)

kneemos

Same as adoption really.Some issues I suppose,but no big deal in the big scheme.

DareGod

Add a poll?

5starpool

I have no problems with this. If we ever get to the stage when there are true test tube babies (i.e. from manufactured eggs/sperm rather than from natural sources) then it will be a far bigger ethical question and one most people would be uncomfortable with I'd say.

In the current form though, surrogacy and IVF are branches of the same tree for me and I think it's good that they are available, but as mentioned already need to be regulated properly.

Kiwi in IE

eviltwin wrote: »

No. If I want to offer myself as a surrogate or egg donor I should be able to do so. I do think it needs regulation, mandatory counselling and all that, no payment should change hands. But as a concept I have no issues with it.

I absoloutley agree. I am wondering what issues those who are against surrogacy have with it, particularly as children who are born to surrogacy, could never have existed if it were not for surrogacy? People in opposition seem to quote the supposed requirement for a biological mother and father, but these particular children, who are real and do/will exist, can never have had a biological mother and father, as that particular child is a direct result of that particular surrogacy arrangement. I personally don't see a biological mother and father supposedly being the 'ideal', as something that is relevant at all. Even if it was the 'ideal', society cannot legislate for the 'ideal'. How can anyone consider it preferential that children who have been born via surrogacy, and will be in the future, not exist at all simply to uphold a personal preference as to what constitutes an 'ideal' family?

Kiwi in IE

fizzypish wrote: »

Jasus. Make it easier (less corrupt and better regulated) to adopt kids from foreign (or our own?) countries. If you really want a child and are unable to have one yourself, the genetics of the child should not be your main concern. This is going to sound horrible but we don't need to create extra people, there are plenty of neglected/spares in the world. Christ that sounds bad.....

I am in a situation of secondary infertility and I would prefer to have a biogical child/one parents biological child, born via surrogacy if it comes to that, than adopt. Call it selfish, call it what you will, but that would be my preference. Of course I would prefer to adopt than have no more children at all, but I would choose surrogacy, particularly gestational, over adoption. I like the first child that mine and OH's DNA produced and want another one like that, or even half like that.

Kiwi in IE

DareGod wrote: »

Add a poll?

Yeah good idea but I'm note sure how to do one? Will look it up and add one later as a bit pressed for time just now.

Kiwi in IE

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Is it so terrible to grow up with parents (even if they are the best parents in the world) who are not your biological parents, that it is better to not ever be born?

I do not think so. I have never subscribed to this idea that children would be better off with any particular parental configuration. Biological or otherwise. Once those parents provide what a child actually needs and requires for a successful and healthy upbringing.

As I am about to say below - I think having your own biological child/parent adds a dimension to things that might otherwise be absent - but I do not find that a requirement for anything - nor do I feel its absence is a horror. In fact - as we are likely to hear numerous times on this thread - there are a not insignificant number of children who would be or would have been much better off without their biological parents because they simply were bad parents.

I think the "ideal" is that a child be raised by the best parent(s) available to do the job. If they happen to be biologically directly related - then that is just a "nice to have" bonus - but in no way a requirement or an "ideal".

fizzypish wrote: »

If you really want a child and are unable to have one yourself, the genetics of the child should not be your main concern.

Not sure we have any pedestal to throw "should" around at people. For many people the genetics are very important to them. They are attached to the idea not of just raising a child together - but having a little bit more of each other in the world.

My own children are a joy to me and I love raising them and everything about them as an individual. But I ALSO have a separate channel of love for them founded on seeing aspects of their mother in them - and of knowing that in bringing children into the world with my partners - I am bringing a bit more of the women I love into the world.

Of course I would likely have strong emotional attachment to an adopted child that we chose to raise together and put our souls into - but there is no denying that extra layer I feel when a sudden glance - or expression - or movement - or other aspect of them suddenly makes me see their mother in them.

So for that reason I certain see - nor have I heard - any arguments against the morality or ethics of gestational surrogacy. If anyone has any I look forward to hearing them. I know less - have thought less - about what the user above referred to as "traditional surrogacy" however. So I await hearing any arguments on that too.

I certainly know that in my (mff) relationship when it was announced the first time we were pregnant that the squeal of "Oh my god we are going to be mommies!!!" from the second (non biological) mother in the relationship told me all I subjectively needed to know about surrogacy in our situation. We were her "traditional surrogates" - as she will be ours for the next two children we plan - and her love is no less than ours for our two children so far. And the genetics mean she sees us in the children sometimes - in the way I described above.

arayess

I'm against it.

Despite all the fancy thinking I believe a child is better with both biological parents in their lives. David Quinn has a point in that regard - it's wilful denying the child that right , it doesn't sit easy with me.

This isn't always possible for various reasons but we shouldn't deliberately stand in the way of it either.
before anybody gets all upset I'm a single parent for over a decade saying this. non traditional families can be really good but it can't be as good as being with your father and mother - assuming no extreme circumstances and all things being equal.


Surrogacy as it stands in the world is a murky business , a lot of rich 1st world parent using impoverished 3rd world women to bare their kids for a few quid. that's exploitation in my book.

stories like this recent one don't sit well with me

http://time.com/3838319/israel-nepal-surrogates/

arayess

arayess wrote: »

Despite all the fancy thinking I believe a child is better with both biological parents in their lives.

But as I say above I am not so sure. There are certain dimensions they would have they might not have otherwise - but that does not mean "better" by any means.

An analogy might be to suggesting that color blind people miss out on a dimension of our existence that the rest of us have. Hard to agree with that. But does that make anyone "better or worse" or mean their life is less ideal or inferior? I would not say so.

Similarly while there are dimensions to life one misses when a parent or child is not directly biologically related - jumping from there to "better" is a very subjective and seemingly arbitrary leap.

arayess wrote: »

Surrogacy as it stands in the world is a murky business

Here you would get less argument from me. There are aspects to how it is done now that I would of course change. It is likely a pointless hope however - but I find myself hoping the thread manages to distinguish between "X is good or bad" and "it is bad how we are doing X now".

By all means lets talk about how surrogacy could be done better - safer - and with more consideration for all involved. But let us not any of us make the mistake of indicting the morality of surrogacy - in and of itself - with any failings we might find in current practices of it. Alas this is sometimes very hard for people to separate - one just has to spend 5 minutes on a thread about prostitution to see that.

walkingshadow

Havent you not been listening to the Iona Institute? Children born by surrogacy to gays will, 100%, turn into degenerate gay serial killers.

Kiwi in IE

arayess wrote: »

I'm against it.

Despite all the fancy thinking I believe a child is better with both biological parents in their lives. David Quinn has a point in that regard - it's wilful denying the child that right , it doesn't sit easy with me.

This isn't always possible for various reasons but we shouldn't deliberately stand in the way of it either.
before anybody gets all upset I'm a single parent for over a decade saying this. non traditional families can be really good but it can't be as good as being with your father and mother - assuming no extreme circumstances and all things being equal.


Surrogacy as it stands in the world is a murky business , a lot of rich 1st world parent using impoverished 3rd world women to bare their kids for a few quid. that's exploitation in my book.

stories like this recent one don't sit well with me

http://time.com/3838319/israel-nepal-surrogates/

I agree that exploitation can be an issue and believe that there needs to be regulations to prevent this.

However, on the subject of biological mothers and fathers, what about if the surrogate is someone the couple know who volunteered and it is a gestational surrogacy, so the child will have a biological mother and father? What about a couple where one is infertile, using IVF with donated sperm/egg? I assume you consider that in the same light since the child will not have two biological parents?

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

But as I say above I am not so sure. There are certain dimensions they would have they might not have otherwise - but that does not mean "better" by any means.

dude, i find it hard to argue with you as you have 2 birds and I can't even get any one to watch porn with me.

but you make a fair point
Under no circumstances would I say not having a mother and father will ruin a kid - I'm a single parent and we've a good life and he is happy enough for a teenager - but I think it is better to grow up with both or at least have that attempt. Surrogacy eliminates that from the equation immediately.

i'm sure surrogate parent are mostly fine , I'd never hold it against anybody.
But there are too many risks involved and the child could be left losing out for me to say "yeah , this is a good idea".
It's not like agreeing to buy a car and changing your mind.

Not to mention the damage done to the women for handing up their baby and never seeing them again. If surrogacy is done as a favour to a friend or out of charity I could accept their is less of that damage but not in a 3rd world scenario where the women's driving factor is poverty. i can see huge damage to the women in that scenario.

LookingFor

I'm not sure it's possible to completely ban it, practically speaking. You can make parental arrangements more difficult afterward, but the actual act of surrogacy?

I mean you can ban commercial surrogacy, make that illegal.

But how do you make altruistic surrogacy illegal?

sunshine and showers

No,as long as there is no monetary gain involved.

arayess

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree that exploitation can be an issue and believe that there needs to be regulations to prevent this.

However, on the subject of biological mothers and fathers, what about if the surrogate is someone the couple know who volunteered and it is a gestational surrogacy, so the child will have a biological mother and father? What about a couple where one is infertile, using IVF with donated sperm/egg? I assume you consider that in the same light since the child will not have two biological parents?

IVF isn't for me I know that 100%.
But since i've friend gone down that route - albeit with their own egg/sperm - I'm not against it.

what do i think ? - I think that's fine if they want that but to be prepared for awkwardness with the child is older and questions them on it and questions their own being.
I know from splitting up with my kids' mother the early teenager years caused much questioning and awkward questions.
Took me my surprised as I was split with her almost 10 years.

in short - do what you want , but its' not an ideal situation (imo)
what is ? I know you'll ask me that :pac:

question for you.
if a couple couldn't have kids and needed a donor - why not consider adopting or fostering?

fizzypish

arayess wrote: »

if a couple couldn't have kids and needed a donor - why not consider adopting or fostering?

OH's family foster. Hoooo lordy this is not an easy situation.

RobertKK

Yes it should be banned at present as it is not regulated.

Kiwi in IE

walkingshadow wrote: »

Havent you not been listening to the Iona Institute? Children born by surrogacy to gays will, 100%, turn into degenerate gay serial killers.

Basically I am wondering if there is as much interest in opposing surrogacy itself, when it is separated from the totally irrelevant but convenient issue of Equal Marriage. And if so what are the reasons and are those reasons good enough to prevent surrogacy itself from being legal?

Was listening to Today FM earlier, I did not catch the name of the interviewee that Anton Savage was interviewing, but apparently he was a sporting personality. Anton Savage was brilliant and yer man dug himself into a hole, he was banging on about biological mummies and daddies, adoption and surrogacy, but aside from the fact the issue is irrelevant to the referendum, he appeared not to have the slightest problem with the adopted/surrogate children of straight couples not having biological parents. Anton Savage, fair play to him, managed to expose the man's speil as being a very long and convoluted way of saying 'hi my name is ....... and I'm a homophobic' without so much as insinuating it.

I am just wondering if those opposing gay marriage quoting the totally irrelevant issue of biological parents as a reason, are as opposed to surrogacy when it's not being used as a convenient smokescreen, do they think that those reasons are good enough for it to to be banned totally and why?

Kiwi in IE

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes it should be banned at present as it is not regulated.

So rather than it being banned, it should be regulated and legislated for?

arayess

arayess wrote: »

i find it hard to argue with you as you have 2 birds and I can't even get any one to watch porn with me.

Not my deep wit and well thought out opinions then? :P Oh well.

arayess wrote: »

Under no circumstances would I say not having a mother and father will ruin a kid

Indeed - and I hope I did not give the impression that that was the meaning I took from it.

I think I just do not use words like "better" as easily as some people - and if some one calls something "better" or "worse" I generally try to unpack that and see if it is warranted - or if it is a personal value judgement that is just arbitrary.

And at this time I really do not see any reason to think having the biological parents is "better" or even having one of each sex parents - or anything like that.

I get that emotionally lots and lots of people think it is "better" but actually get them to unpack why they think so - and so far I come up with silence. The same when I hear that phrase you used "missing out" - and people can not generally articulate what they think the child is "missing out" on. There is just a vague - worry - they have that has not congealed yet that perhaps there might be _something_ they might miss out on - but they have no idea what it might be.

VinLieger

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So rather than it being banned, it should be regulated and legislated for?

Deffinitely, having it in the ridiculopus grey area it currently is where all kinds of legal uncertainties exist is typical of successive Irish governments refusal to use any forward thinking on things like this and instead wait till the sh1t hits the fan in a couple of cases, then take 3-5 years to do anything about it and ultimately just hope everyone forgets

anvilfour

walkingshadow wrote: »

Havent you not been listening to the Iona Institute? Children born by surrogacy to gays will, 100%, turn into degenerate gay serial killers.

A good point walkingshadow... something which I have raised on the thread about gay marriage. Almost all serial killers came from white bread homes with mother and father... it seems heterogeneous parenting is no guarantee of pedigree!

osarusan

arayess wrote: »

non traditional families can be really good but it can't be as good as being with your father and mother - assuming no extreme circumstances and all things being equal.

Do you accept that various research bodies all say otherwise?

Do you think that adoptive parents / parents through surrogacy (heterosexual or homosexual) cannot, no matter what, be as good parents as biological parents?

Because the 2nd question above seems to be one of the key points of opposition to surrogacy, but only when homosexual couples are involved.

anvilfour

My ex and had Cerebral Palsy and while this in itself isn't necessarily a bar to having children, she had and has a bad habit of falling over near stairs so we were worried for any potential baby.

We looked into Surrogacy and found that under UK law at any rate the legal mother is considered to be the woman who gave birth to the child, not the one who donated the egg.

It seemed the only option to clear up any legal issues would be to go abroad to India or Thailand use a clinic there and pay a local woman to bear the child but we were concerned this was rather exploitative.

RobertKK

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So rather than it being banned, it should be regulated and legislated for?

Well I go with banned given what we have at present.
The government need to do something about it, legislate and regulate, or legislate and ban.
No policy at all is like pretending it doesn't exist.

Dirty Dingus McGee

I'm not in favour of it for gay couples as I think it's unfair on a child not to have a father and a mother.Gay couples cannot reporoduce and they should just accept that and get on with their lives we already have enough children on the planet withpout needlessly creating more children.If they want to adopt or foster fair enough (it might help some children have a better life) but I don't think surrogacy for gay couples should be allowed.

eviltwin

I've a few friends who are adopted. Only one had an open adoption, she knows her mother and had regular contact with her over the years. The others were classic closed adoptions and they had the issues that are so common to children not growing up with biological parents.

The issues as I see it are not with adoption and assisted reproduction themselves but rather the mystery and anonymous nature of them. Of course people will want and need to know their origins. That's why everything needs to be open and transparent. That's what needs to change, not the methods of assistance.

VinLieger

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not in favour of it for gay couples as I think it's unfair on a child not to have a father and a mother.Gay people cannot reporoduce and they should just accept that and get on with their lives we already have enough children on the planet withpout needlessly creating more children.If they want to adopt or foster fair enough (it might help some children have a better life) but I don't think surrogacy for gay couples should be allowed.

Gay people can reproduce, Gay couples cannot.

LookingFor

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not in favour of it for gay couples as I think it's unfair on a child not to have a father and a mother.Gay people cannot reporoduce and they should just accept that and get on with their lives we already have enough children on the planet withpout needlessly creating more children.If they want to adopt or foster fair enough (it might help some children have a better life) but I don't think surrogacy for gay couples should be allowed.

I think you should elaborate on what is so grievous about having gay parents that it is better not to be conceived in the first place than to have parents such as them.

Vs other kinds of parents who I presume you would not enforce a legal contraception on wrt surrogacy despite there being empirical evidence of negative child outcomes in those other cases.

eviltwin

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not in favour of it for gay couples as I think it's unfair on a child not to have a father and a mother.Gay people cannot reporoduce and they should just accept that and get on with their lives we already have enough children on the planet withpout needlessly creating more children.If they want to adopt or foster fair enough (it might help some children have a better life) but I don't think surrogacy for gay couples should be allowed.

So if I volunteered to have a baby for a gay couple I know what should happen then? You can't regulate that. Surrogacy is a red herring, currently it's almost impossible for anyone to do commercial surrogacy given the cost. Most cases will be private arrangements between friends.

seamus

arayess wrote: »

David Quinn has a point in that regard - it's wilful denying the child that right , it doesn't sit easy with me.

"Denying" is a loaded word in this regard, really.

Where surrogacy is concerned the question is not whether it's better to take away the child's biological parents and give them new parents.
The question here is whether a child having non-biological parents is preferable to not being born at all.

At the end of the day if surrogacy is not available, the child will not "get" biological parents, the child will simply not be born.

So the argument of bio -v- non-bio parents is really moot where surrogacy is concerned, unless one believes that a child is better off not being born at all.

arayess

osarusan wrote: »

Do you accept that various research bodies all say otherwise?

Do you think that adoptive parents / parents through surrogacy (heterosexual or homosexual) cannot, no matter what, be as good parents as biological parents?

Because the 2nd question above seems to be one of the key points of opposition to surrogacy, but only when homosexual couples are involved.

i don't accept research bodies blindly. If it was honest I don't read them , the newspaper synopsis is what i'd read and that certainly is flawed.

I don't think it's the same , my experience as a single parent bares that out.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing but i believe we shouldn't eliminate the mother/father from the start. that's all.
I have misgivings over a child being in the womb of somebody and then handed over to a 3rd party after birth and that's the end of the mother.
It might be flawed arguing but I don't have as much moral qualms for a sperm donor - I can only muse that it is due to the 9 months in the womb and the initial bond with the mother - I hear all sorts of magic happens then..

In fairness i'd happily live with legal surrogacy and ignore my moral misgivings (which would exist) if the exploitation was eliminated and the a legal framework created on the matter which must include clauses on the child's welfare should the deal go south.

I don't care about homosexual/heterosexual..
people have the capacity to be **** regardless of sexual orientation and that applies to all topics.

Kiwi in IE

RobertKK wrote: »

Well I go with banned given what we have at present.
The government need to do something about it, legislate and regulate, or legislate and ban.
No policy at all is like pretending it doesn't exist.

So would you prefer to see it legislated for and banned or legislated for and regulated? If regulated what regulations would you want to see put in place?

Dirty Dingus McGee

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not in favour of it for gay couples as I think it's unfair on a child not to have a father and a mother.

See no reason why that is unfair at all.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

Gay people cannot reporoduce and they should just accept that and get on with their lives

The most common usage of surrogacy is straight people who can not reproduce. I think "not being able to reproduce" is all but a given on this thread - and homosexuals have no monopoly on that in this context. So it is not clear why you even bring it up.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

we already have enough children on the planet withpout needlessly creating more children.

Have you looked at the quantities of people using surrogacy? It is hardly impacting world population figures all that much. Are you against IVF and other infertility treatments too?

And who are you to decree about "need" anyway? Do any of us "need" to have children? If we do then we all do. If we do not then we all do not. Either way that makes your "point" here entirely moot.

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

If they want to adopt or foster fair enough (it might help some children have a better life) but I don't think surrogacy for gay couples should be allowed.

Adoption should be allowed for gay couples but not surrogacy? How does that make sense in the light of your non-point related to it being "unfair" that the child has no mother or father? You either stand by that point - or you do not - why would it be different for adoption and surrogacy when the effect would be entirely the same in terms of the sex of the parents who raise the child?

traprunner

It's the woman's body to do with as she wishes.

arayess

arayess wrote: »

the newspaper synopsis is what i'd read and that certainly is flawed.

And how. Just how badly flawed the media interpretations of scientific works can be - and often are - would surprise most people. There is very little substitute from a short education on how to read and interpret scientific works yourself - and then make a point of reading the original documents on subjects that interest you.

arayess wrote: »

i believe we shouldn't eliminate the mother/father from the start. that's all.

THAT you are saying that I think is clear. It is the basis for saying it that is unclear. You appear to think it - just because you think it. And while that's ok - I am not lashing out at you for it - I am curious to find if there is more to it than that.

LookingFor

seamus wrote: »

"Denying" is a loaded word in this regard, really.

Where surrogacy is concerned the question is not whether it's better to take away the child's biological parents and give them new parents.
The question here is whether a child having non-biological parents is preferable to not being born at all.

At the end of the day if surrogacy is not available, the child will not "get" biological parents, the child will simply not be born.

So the argument of bio -v- non-bio parents is really moot where surrogacy is concerned, unless one believes that a child is better off not being born at all.

I see people giving out about this argument, but it is true.

Breda O'Brien got closer to the truth of her argument by saying 'if we allow same sex marriage, more gay people might have children via surrogacy'.

That may or may not be true, but imagining it is for a moment - that doesn't mean any child who WOULD have had a mother or father suddenly won't.

In cases like that, either the child will be had, and be raised by gay parents, or the child won't be conceived at all. Would it be better to force the biological father and surrogate mother into an arrangement where they raise the child together? I don't think so.

Breda went as far as to say that this 'life is not right'. But I struggle to see what is so critically bad about these circumstances - vs the many others that kids are raised in and that no one bats an eye at - that it would warrant banning the child's conception.

Kiwi in IE

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

I'm not in favour of it for gay couples as I think it's unfair on a child not to have a father and a mother.Gay couples cannot reporoduce and they should just accept that and get on with their lives we already have enough children on the planet withpout needlessly creating more children.If they want to adopt or foster fair enough (it might help some children have a better life) but I don't think surrogacy for gay couples should be allowed.

So that child is better off not being born at all? Having a mother and father is more important than existence itself?

strobe

eviltwin wrote: »

No. If I want to offer myself as a surrogate or egg donor I should be able to do so. I do think it needs regulation, mandatory counselling and all that, no payment should change hands. But as a concept I have no issues with it.

Why do you think no payment should change hands?

eviltwin

strobe wrote: »

Why do think no money should change hands?

Because it should be done for altruistic reasons. If it becomes a way of earning money vulnerable people may be tempted to do it. It's not worth the risk.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Because it should be done for altruistic reasons. If it becomes a way of earning money vulnerable people may be tempted to do it. It's not worth the risk.

There is of course the important medium between the extremes of profit - and no money changing hands at all - which is that enough money is claimed to account for expenses - loss of earnings - and other issues related to the expense of being pregnant in our world.

strobe

eviltwin wrote: »

Because it should be done for altruistic reasons. If it becomes a way of earning money vulnerable people may be tempted to do it. It's not worth the risk.

Surely it's up to the vulnerable people to decide for themselves if it's worth the risk?

arayess

Deleted User wrote: »

And how. Just how badly flawed the media interpretations of scientific works can be - and often are - would surprise most people. There is very little substitute from a short education on how to read and interpret scientific works yourself - and then make a point of reading the original documents on subjects that interest you.

i know what you mean
but i've 24 hours in the day - reading the latest study on x and y isn't high on my agenda. I do read stuff on pubmed related to fitness, nutrition and that stuff. But my day is full but I see your point.

Deleted User wrote: »

THAT you are saying that I think is clear. It is the basis for saying it that is unclear. You appear to think it - just because you think it. And while that's ok - I am not lashing out at you for it - I am curious to find if there is more to it than that.

it's just a belief that it complicates the child life without access or knowledge of both biological parents. It's not an exact science but there is a link to between people who are connected biologically.

i think breaking that link is not a postive step , how negative is up for debate but its' certainly not positive .

knowing two lads who are adpoted I know that process creates a vaccum and i can (reasonably imo) assume the same here. But as adoption is trying to create something better - ie give a child a home -

I don't think creating that scenario on purpose (for want of a better word) this is a step to the better.

Galway K9

The amount of kids in foster homes and up for adoption here and all over the world, and people are debating surrogacy, i don't understand? Why not help the world than hinder it?

seamus

eviltwin wrote: »

Because it should be done for altruistic reasons. If it becomes a way of earning money vulnerable people may be tempted to do it. It's not worth the risk.

I concur with this. It should be a very specific type of contract governed by very specific rules. Failure to operate within the framework would render the surrogacy arrangement invalid and the normal adoption process would have to be followed, including the right of the child's father to object.

So the framework would specify that all costs are payable by the intended parents, but the donor parent cannot receive any direct compensation or ex gratia payments.
Failure to hand over the child at the end would of course leave the donor liable for all costs.

Allowing direct compensation to be made for surrogacy does leave us in a bizarre situation where some women by necessity or through trafficking will become little more than baby factories. Or attractive young women potentially turned into an odd type of extended prostitute where a trafficker is paid better money depending on the attractiveness of the donor mother.
It's an extremely niche concern, granted, but there's no reason to introduce it if it can be helped.

eviltwin

strobe wrote: »

Surely it's up to the vulnerable people to decide for themselves if it's worth the risk?

We have a duty of care to vulnerable people to protect them and the would be parents. We're not stopping them doing it, we're just ensuring they are doing it for the right reasons.