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

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 11:12AM #1

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 · 13-05-2015 11:15AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:20AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:21AM

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

osarusan · 13-05-2015 11:21AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:22AM

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

DareGod · 13-05-2015 11:23AM

Add a poll?

5starpool · 13-05-2015 11:24AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:33AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:39AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:40AM

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.

13-05-2015 11:45AM

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 · 13-05-2015 11:58AM

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/

13-05-2015 12:03PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:07PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:08PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:16PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:17PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:19PM

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

arayess · 13-05-2015 12:22PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:26PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:28PM

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

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 12:37PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:38PM

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?

13-05-2015 12:40PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:44PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:46PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:47PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:50PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:51PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:51PM

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.

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

Do you think surrogacy (all types) in Ireland should be: 138 votes

Comments