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

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 12:53PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:54PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:55PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:56PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:59PM

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 · 13-05-2015 12:59PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:00PM

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?

13-05-2015 01:00PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:02PM

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

13-05-2015 01:03PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:06PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:15PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:17PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:19PM

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.

13-05-2015 01:20PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:20PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:22PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:22PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:24PM

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 · 13-05-2015 01:25PM

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.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 01:27PM

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

I don't see why it can't be strictly regulated to protect exploitation of vulnerable people and have payment allowed.

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 01:27PM

Galway K9 wrote: »

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?

It's really hard to adopt, there was only about 13 international adoptions in the last year we have stats for. Babies are rarely placed for adoption here. And some people want their biological child.

bodice ripper · 13-05-2015 01:27PM

Nope.

If I want to be a surrogate that is my business. How about you stop telling people how they ought not to produce wanted children - and get in the face of people would keep producing unwanted children....

13-05-2015 01:27PM

arayess wrote: »

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.

Not so sure there is that much of a link really. We emotionally might feel there must be - because the majority of us DID grow up with our siblings and our parents. And we feel a connection to them. So we might just emotionally assume it must be genetically or biologically based.

But there is little reason to think that is true that I have been made aware of. While people who are adopted - for example - do go seeking information - or even a relationship with - their biological parents - how many of them do this as a % really?

arayess wrote: »

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

Nor does it need to be in the context of this thread. If it could be shown to a be a negative then it would be a worthy point to make on the thread. But if it can not be shown to be - the merely assuming it neutral and not positive at all is more than enough for requirements. I - like you - do not think it is a "positive" thing. But unlike you I suspect it might be entirely neutral.

arayess wrote: »

knowing two lads who are adpoted I know that process creates a vaccum and i can (reasonably imo) assume the same here.

Not so reasonable at all I am afraid. Extrapolating a conclusion based on anecdotes - especially a paltry number like two - is rarely reasonable.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 01:29PM

Galway K9 wrote: »

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?

The same could be said equally for natural conception surely?

eviltwin · 13-05-2015 01:31PM

osarusan wrote: »

I don't see why it can't be strictly regulated to protect exploitation of vulnerable people and have payment allowed.

Payment of expenses certainly but not for profit.

strobe · 13-05-2015 01:32PM

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

I dunno. Why is everything apart from for payment the right reason but for money the wrong reason? Doesn't make sense to me. If I want to risk myself in some manner to earn money, whether it's working in a coal mine, serving in the armed forces, being a pro boxer or acting as a surrogate, I don't see why I should be prevented from doing so.

You can take the risk, but you can't profit from it, doesn't sound like looking out for my best interests. That money could put me through college, or improve my life in any other number of ways. I'm not harming anyone and the risk is to me. As an adult I believe I should be able to choose for myself what I do with my own body and why if im not harming anyone else.

My body, my choice, no?

RobertKK · 13-05-2015 01:33PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

I am not overly pushed either way. One can argue a point for it, and one can see where things can be complicated.
I can see why some would want it.
I have not put a lot of thought into what the regulations should be.
Strict regulations to allow it in certain cases, like a relation have a baby for a couple because maybe the female is unable to have a successful pregnancy.
Honestly, I would need to put more thought into it.
I kind of zone out when it is brought up in the marriage referendum.

fizzypish · 13-05-2015 01:34PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The same could be said equally for natural conception surely?

Exactly.
I have to admit though that my opinions are coming from a mid 20's guy with no interest in reproduction so essentially I have no dog in this fight. Might have a different perspective in 10 years.

osarusan · 13-05-2015 01:34PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Payment of expenses certainly but not for profit.

Why not though?

i know you mentioned 'the right reasons' and altruistic reasons, but can they be the only reasons?

what about a couple who cannot find anybody to be a surrogate for those reasons?

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

Comments