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

alias no.9 · 13-05-2015 01:34PM

In circumstances where the prospective parents are much much wealthier then the surrogate mother, it certainly should.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2015 01:41PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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?

You're really asking an impossible question there, because how can a person truly know what it is not to be born? They can't.

I've never thought about this question from the perspective of the biological or surrogate mother and father at all, but rather from the perspective of the human being that is actually brought into the world, and honestly for me at least, it's easy to say I have no problem with how they're brought into the world, whether that be naturally or through AHR.

I've always argued that no child is raised in a bubble, and that children don't come into the world with their own "ideal" of who they should be raised by, or indeed how they should be raised. They simply don't know any better. They only learn as they grow up and experience other people's relationships that they start to wonder about their own origins and their place in the world, and how they came to be.

So for me, it's not about people's right to procreate, that right doesn't exist, and there is no obligation on any State, that I'm aware of at least, which says they must provide citizens with the means to do so if they cannot do so naturally. From my perspective, the State should focus on the provision of a set standard of a quality of life of a person rather than simply the right to life.

There are all sorts of moral and ethical arguments around how human beings come into the world, but I would always be more focused on their welfare now that they are here, rather than how they came to be here.

arayess · 13-05-2015 01:45PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

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.

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

i disagree. but I guess we are where we are.

newport2 · 13-05-2015 02:06PM

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.

I don't see how they can take that stance. After all, Jesus had two fathers and was carried by a woman that neither of them impregnated. OK, so he hung around with 12 other guys in dresses when he got older, but he seemed a sound enough bloke. Certainly no serial killer.

13-05-2015 02:23PM

newport2 wrote: »

I don't see how they can take that stance. After all, Jesus had two fathers and was carried by a woman that neither of them impregnated. OK, so he hung around with 12 other guys in dresses when he got older, but he seemed a sound enough bloke. Certainly no serial killer.

Well biologically speaking if a virgin did give birth without any kind of impregnation - there is a vastly majority requirement that Jesus would have therefore been female. His attraction to cross dressing cross gendering communities of his time would - in that light - make a hell of a lot of sense.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 04:19PM

Poll now added.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 05:19PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're really asking an impossible question there, because how can a person truly know what it is not to be born? They can't.

I've never thought about this question from the perspective of the biological or surrogate mother and father at all, but rather from the perspective of the human being that is actually brought into the world, and honestly for me at least, it's easy to say I have no problem with how they're brought into the world, whether that be naturally or through AHR.

I've always argued that no child is raised in a bubble, and that children don't come into the world with their own "ideal" of who they should be raised by, or indeed how they should be raised. They simply don't know any better. They only learn as they grow up and experience other people's relationships that they start to wonder about their own origins and their place in the world, and how they came to be.

So for me, it's not about people's right to procreate, that right doesn't exist, and there is no obligation on any State, that I'm aware of at least, which says they must provide citizens with the means to do so if they cannot do so naturally. From my perspective, the State should focus on the provision of a set standard of a quality of life of a person rather than simply the right to life.

There are all sorts of moral and ethical arguments around how human beings come into the world, but I would always be more focused on their welfare now that they are here, rather than how they came to be here.

I agree with what you are saying OEJ about what the focus of the state should be and I'm not suggesting that the state should have any role in reproductive methods except legislation and regulation. The point of the thread I guess was to get those who are protesting other issues on the basis of biological parents, and the potential lack of, to think about surrogacy itself, away from the other issue that it is actually irrelevant to, and whether they are actually opposed to it and why.

I certainly don't think that biological parents are that big a deal that it would be better (from the perspective of someone who is already born) to never have been born at all.

If medical technology and scientific advances can help couples that cannot have children to fulfil their dreams of having a family, are the personal opinions of unrelated people on what constitutes and 'ideal' family based on biological relations really important enough to prevent surrogacy being legally available?

Aside from the issue of potential exploitation of the surrogate, which can be dealt with with regulation and legislation, I see this as another 'busy body' issue, where people whom it does not affect seem to want to prevent those who wish to avail of such methods from doing so, based on their personal opinions and preferences. Preferences which they are free to continue to apply to their own lives whether or not whatever it is they personally oppose is available to other people (abortion, equal marriage, euthanasia, surrogacy and other forms of donor assisted reproduction etc, etc).

I don't think I worded the OP very well to convey exactly what I was trying to achieve, but I wanted to take the surrogacy issue away from equal marriage to be discussed. It seems to be a very hot topic, but am wondering if the concern about that actual issue is genuine, and if so why, or is it just a smokescreen.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-05-2015 05:28PM

If it is done it should be completely regulated.
It should be mandatory to tell the child who they really are, rather than the intended parents pretend to the child they're also the biological parents.

The egg/sperm donors should be treated better too. Sometimes, I think some infertile parents can be so desperate for a child they would literally do anything to have their own child, which i can completely understand, but may leave the donor feeling used in years to come, or lied to, or taken advantage of.

It should be the child's right to know who they really are and where they come from more than it should be the parents right not to tell people they had to use someone elses genetic material or have some 18/19 year old sign away their rights to something they don't completely understand.

I'd also be concerned with 1/2 siblings falling for each other but I think that may be a long way off.

One eyed Jack · 13-05-2015 05:45PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree with what you are saying OEJ about what the focus of the state should be and I'm not suggesting that the state should have any role in reproductive methods except legislation and regulation. The point of the thread I guess was to get those who are protesting other issues on the basis of biological parents, and the potential lack of, to think about surrogacy itself, away from the other issue that it is actually irrelevant to, and whether they are actually opposed to it and why.

I certainly don't think that biological parents are that big a deal that it would be better (from the perspective of someone who is already born) to never have been born at all.

If medical technology and scientific advances can help couples that cannot have children to fulfil their dreams of having a family, are the personal opinions of unrelated people on what constitutes and 'ideal' family based on biological relations really important enough to prevent surrogacy being legally available?

Aside from the issue of potential exploitation of the surrogate, which can be dealt with with regulation and legislation, I see this as another 'busy body' issue, where people whom it does not affect seem to want to prevent those who wish to avail of such methods from doing so, based on their personal opinions and preferences. Preferences which they are free to continue to apply to their own lives whether or not whatever it is they personally oppose is available to other people (abortion, equal marriage, euthanasia, surrogacy and other forms of donor assisted reproduction etc, etc).

I don't think I worded the OP very well to convey exactly what I was trying to achieve, but I wanted to take the surrogacy issue away from equal marriage to be discussed. It seems to be a very hot topic, but am wondering if the concern about that actual issue is genuine, and if so why, or is it just a smokescreen.

In an ideal world Kiwi I'd say "hell no", they could naff off as far as I'm concerned, but once it gets to the level of the formation of legislature and regulation on the issue, you're gonna have all kinds of representatives from all kinds of groups looking to stamp their seal so to speak on any new... what would literally be control measures (regulations).

What a couple choose to do among themselves is never unfortunately just among themselves, and that's how religious lobby groups and so on get their say. I honestly don't think that would change even if we were a truly secular State (some people say we're already a Secular State, I say we sure as hell aren't when religious leaders can still influence public policy).

Me personally, I think they're desperate to keep hold of what little control over Government they have left. It'll be interesting to see what multiculturalism throws up in a few decades time. For now though, I'm gonna go with 'smokescreeen', like much religious lobby groups other 'concerns'.

I too despair to hear them whinge and moan about 'the breakdown of society' when in fact I consider the breaking down of their fantasy idea of what a society should be, is a good thing, because their ideas sure as hell aren't based upon reality, they're based upon maintaining control over people's lives.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 06:55PM

arayess wrote: »

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.

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

IVF isn't for you, but you have been able to have children naturally I assume since you refer to your kids in the post. What if you and your partner had been desperate to conceive but unable to, and this could have been solved with IVF? Would you still decline to have it, even of it meant you would be childless when you desperately wanted a child? For what? This is what I see all these debates being about, the ability to put yourself into someone else's shoes on a issue that doesn't effect you personally. Empathy for others I guess.

As to your question, I can only speak for myself, and as far as we know we are not in a situation where we need a donor, only IVF. Adoption looks impossible quite frankly and far more expensive than what to me is the preferable choice of having a child who is biologically related to at least one of us (never know when someone may need a kidney donor

). If we could not have another biological child, then I would certainly look at adoption but would want to adopt from a baby which it seems is near impossible. Fostering is not for me, this is going to sound very selfish but children who need to be fostered come with so much history already and potentially dysfunctional parents who could cause havoc in your life, not to mention take the child back after you have become emotionally attached to each other. The impact that all of the above would have, not only on us, but our existing child, makes it not an option for us, even in the event that it was the only way we could ever have another child.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-05-2015 07:10PM

I could be reading this completely wrong kiwi and apologies if I am, but are you saying it shouldn't matter if a parent is the child's biological parent or not, but then go on to say that you'd prefer a child that's biologically related to you over a child that wasn't?

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 07:31PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I could be reading this completely wrong kiwi and apologies if I am, but are you saying it shouldn't matter if a parent is the child's biological parent or not, but then go on to say that you'd prefer a child that's biologically related to you over a child that wasn't?

I'm saying it doesn't matter how a child comes into being when they are wanted and will be loved. Parental choice is influenced by ability. In my case I have the ability (hopefully) to have another biological child, although it's looking like IVF, but that doesn't mean if that's not an option and we ended up using donor surrogacy or adopting, that the child would be loved and wanted any less or would have a lesser quality of life than our biological child would.

Most parents who can't have children will take what they can get, but many would prefer surrogacy over adoption/fostering for personal reasons including that they want the child to be related to one of the parents, or both if possible. Because some parents would prefer to be biological parents, does not mean that children are always better off with biological parents.

With surrogacy the choice is between the child coming into being because of assisted reproductive methods, often including donor genetic material, or not coming into being at all. I think that if a child will be loved and cared for by non biological parents, and can be gestated by a willing surrogate, it is better for all concerned that they do exist rather than don't.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 07:37PM

A couple of people have answered 'Illegal in all circumstances', I would be interested to know why?

paleoperson · 13-05-2015 07:46PM

OP you could ask that question any time any child is born at any time when they really shouldn't be.

For example if you have 20 children and live in a starving community in Africa and are thinking of having another child you could ask: "omg, after that child was born, would it be better if it wasn't born at all?". I think we would all agree that in that situation the child should not be had. Or similarly if the child would only live for a few days before dying. What you need sometimes is to have some common sense.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 07:49PM

paleoperson wrote: »

OP you could ask that question any time any child is born at any time when they really shouldn't be.

For example if you have 20 children and live in a starving community in Africa and are thinking of having another child you could ask: "omg, after that child was born, would it be better if it wasn't born at all?". I think we would all agree that in that situation the child should not be had. Or similarly if the child would only live for a few days before dying. What you need sometimes is to have some common sense.

But I am not talking about starving people in Africa having children. I am talking about surrogacy in Ireland and whether people think it should be legal, and if not why not, and if so under what circumstances.

paleoperson · 13-05-2015 07:50PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A couple of people have answered 'Illegal in all circumstances', I would be interested to know why?

I voted it should be illegal in all circumstances because I don't think any person or couple should have a right or expectation to be able to use surrogacy to get a child. There are too many people in the world already, adoption would surely be a better option. People really need to get over themselves and understand that creating something for the specific purposes of engaging their parental instincts is a bad idea.

paleoperson · 13-05-2015 07:53PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But I am not talking about starving people in Africa having children. I am talking about surrogacy in Ireland and whether people think it should be legal, and if not why not, and if so under what circumstances.

Yes but your argument that "it would be better than if they hadn't been born at all" is faulty as demonstrated clearly by the fact that you could use it in those absurd circumstances. Whether we like it or not, objectively it should be avoided for some children to be born at all. So that particular argument of yours is faulty and I was just pointing that out.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-05-2015 07:54PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm saying it doesn't matter how a child comes into being when they are wanted and will be loved. Parental choice is influenced by ability. In my case I have the ability (hopefully) to have another biological child, although it's looking like IVF, but that doesn't mean if that's not an option and we ended up using donor surrogacy or adopting, that the child would be loved and wanted any less or would have a lesser quality of life than our biological child would.

Most parents who can't have children will take what they can get, but many would prefer surrogacy over adoption/fostering for personal reasons including that they want the child to be related to one of the parents, or both if possible. Because some parents would prefer to be biological parents, does not mean that children are always better off with biological parents.

With surrogacy the choice is between the child coming into being because of assisted reproductive methods, often including donor genetic material, or not coming into being at all. I think that if a child will be loved and cared for by non biological parents, and can be gestated by a willing surrogate, it is better for all concerned that they do exist rather than don't.

Do you agree the child should have the right to know its biological parent?

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 07:56PM

paleoperson wrote: »

I voted it should be illegal in all circumstances because I don't think any person or couple should have a right or expectation to be able to use surrogacy to get a child. There are too many people in the world already, adoption would surely be a better option. People really need to get over themselves and understand that creating something for the specific purposes of engaging their parental instincts is a bad idea.

So should couples who are able to concieve naturally also stop having children because there are too many people in the world already? Do couples who can have children need to get over themselves and understand that creating something for the specific purposes of engaging their parental instincts is a bad idea?

paleoperson · 13-05-2015 08:01PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So should couples who are able to concieve naturally also stop having children because there are too many people in the world already? Do couples who can have children need to get over themselves and understand that creating something for the specific purposes of engaging their parental instincts is a bad idea?

Sometimes they should. But it would be better for them to have a child as a natural mother and father rather than some Indian woman having a child for them.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 08:01PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Do you agree the child should have the right to know its biological parent?

I think that they should have the right to medical and any other relevant information and contact details but I do not think that the donor of the egg or sperm should be under any obligation to engage if they do not wish to.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 08:04PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes but your argument that "it would be better than if they hadn't been born at all" is faulty as demonstrated clearly by the fact that you could use it in those absurd circumstances. Whether we like it or not, objectively it should be avoided for some children to be born at all. So that particular argument of yours is faulty and I was just pointing that out.

But why should it be better for a wanted child who will be loved, cared for and given a good quality of life not to be born at all when a surrogate is willing to carry out the pregnancy?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-05-2015 08:06PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think that they should have the right to medical and any other relevant information and contact details but I do not think that the donor of the egg or sperm should be under any obligation to engage if they do not wish to.

I agree somewhat, that when the child is old enough neither party should have to engage if it's not mutual, but the option should be there. For example, should intended parents use a donor egg, this must be disclosed to the child. Everybody has the right to know who they are.

When the time is right, the child should be given the option to contact the biological parent and if both parties want, there should be the option to maintain a relationship.

Telling the child if they are biologically related to someone else should be mandatory once they are old enough to understand.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 13-05-2015 08:09PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But why should it be better for a wanted child who will be loved, cared for and given a good quality of life not to be born at all when a surrogate is willing to carry out the pregnancy?

What if that surrogate gets to the end of the pregnancy and decides she's bonded with the child and can't give it up? She should have that final say right up to when the child is born. She should not be forced to give the child away at the end of the pregnancy if she does not want to.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 08:11PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Sometimes they should. But it would be better for them to have a child as a natural mother and father rather than some Indian woman having a child for them.

I'm talking about surrogacy being legislated for in Ireland, so the India and Indian women will have nothing to do with this. Why? Why is it better for them to be born to a natural mother and father? What if the mother and father are the biological parents? Or one of them is? And 'they'will not be born to a natural mother and father anyway which is one of the points of my argument.

paleoperson · 13-05-2015 08:13PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

But why should it be better for a wanted child who will be loved, cared for and given a good quality of life not to be born at all when a surrogate is willing to carry out the pregnancy?

Firstly, there is no need or reason for any more people to be born right now. We're way overpopulated as it is.

Secondly, imo you are ridiculous and "on your own" to deny any link between biological parent and child.

Thirdly, just because you can find someone, somewhere in this world desperate enough to do something for you doesn't make it right. A person may also be "willing" to prostitute themselves as a child or give themselves up for slave labour or any number of things. That's why they have laws to prevent this type of thing. Really, you have a very immature and naive attitude towards this.

Fourthly, designer babies and eugenics will follow from such arrangements.

Kiwi in IE · 13-05-2015 08:15PM

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What if that surrogate gets to the end of the pregnancy and decides she's bonded with the child and can't give it up? She should have that final say right up to when the child is born. She should not be forced to give the child away at the end of the pregnancy if she does not want to.

Honestly? I'm not sure on this one. But I don't think the potential for this happening warrants banning surrogacy altogether.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 08:16PM

Definitely available with regulation to prevent exploitation.

I'm dismayed how many people think you can "just adopt". Adoption is practically impossible now in Ireland. I've had friends almost 10 years on waiting lists as one country after another closed it's borders to foreign adoption. It's just not happening. There are not thousands of unwanted children waiting to be adopted, well there may be, but they're not available for adoption in Ireland.

My only fear with surrogacy is around the future health of the surrogate after a pregnancy, might there be potential problems as a result of the pregnancy? What if her body was irreparably damaged? What if something like the Savita Halappanavar situation happened and the surrogate died as a result of the pregnancy? These are the only real concerns I would have.

MrWalsh · 13-05-2015 08:20PM

paleoperson wrote: »

Fourthly, designer babies and eugenics will follow from such arrangements.

Again, if it was regulated I have no problem with eugenics, better to eradicate horrendous genetic diseases and lessen suffering. I realise there will be an automatic "ugh the Nazis did it" but what they did wasn't true eugenics, it was selective breeding with no scientific methods to repair damaged genes.

Of course I wouldn't agree with sterilising some people etc...but throwing eugenics out there are something to automatically fear is wrong IMO.

paleoperson · 13-05-2015 08:25PM

MrWalsh wrote: »

Again, if it was regulated I have no problem with eugenics, better to eradicate horrendous genetic diseases and lessen suffering. I realise there will be an automatic "ugh the Nazis did it" but what they did wasn't true eugenics, it was selective breeding with no scientific methods to repair damaged genes.

Of course I wouldn't agree with sterilising some people etc...but throwing eugenics out there are something to automatically fear is wrong IMO.

Rubbish. Eugenics will be the end of all humanity and of anything you've ever known.

There is no such thing as "damaged genes", what are you talking about. Complete nonsense. I'm talking about "inferior" or "superior" genes being selected for and frankly you are stupid if you can't see the problem and existential threat of that.

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

Comments