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

paleoperson wrote: »

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.

Isn't that the reason anyone has children?

As for surrogacy, there are a number of very difficult issues:

1. the potential for exploitation. It is very very difficult to avoid that in almost all cases (except perhaps where a family member/close friend acts as surrogate).

2. The positionof the surrogate: is she contractually bound to give up the child even if she changes her mind at birth? If not, where does that leave the 'parents', particularly where they are the genetic parents?

3. The position of the child: does he have a right to know who his surrogate was (especially if the surrogate has a genetic link)? In a child's rights based model (which is surely the appropriate one), it is hard to argue he should not have that right.

There are others. It really is difficult to come up with a workable model which can satisfactorily address these issue. That is not to say it shouldn't happen, but it needs to be carefully teased out as the issues that remain will last lifetimes and affect lives.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So what, children born into disadvantaged or dysfunctional families are less deserving of a loving family because they're not new and shiny and are damaged goods?

Tbh I think it's worse that we're still yanking children away from their parents without going above and beyond to help those parents become better parents rather than taking their children away from them and placing them either with other relatives, or putting them in care, etc.

I don't think it's such a bad thing that nowadays that's become a notoriously difficult to do. I know what you mean alright about people not wanting to have to take on children who haven't had the best start in life, but some people really are just ill-equipped to deal with children who may have had a difficult start in life. I wouldn't judge someone for acknowledging that fact, and I wouldn't judge them for wanting a child as biologically closely related to themselves as possible.

It's never bothered me personally, I love children anyway, but I wouldn't feel right about saying to someone else that they should just take the next child that becomes available when that child may be seven years of age and has been hopped around the care system for a couple of years after being removed from their home at four years of age.

Some people are able for fostering, adoption, etc, and some people it's just not for them, and I'd have more respect for someone who said fostering and adoption weren't for them rather than someone who thought of it only as a last resort simply to fulfill their need to become a parent.

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Absolutely not. She carried it, felt it kick, developed a bond with the child far more than any other person. She should not be forced to hand over something that was part of her for 9 months, even more so if the eggs are also hers.

This is the kind of thing that would need incredibly explicit legislation, should it ever be legalised here.

Are the 'parents-to-be' entitled to their money back?
What if they've paid for medical care all along?
What if the parents-to-be have bought a bigger house to prepre for their child?
If the father-to-be is the actual father of the child, is he liable for child support?
If the baby is born with some medical concerns, and nobody wants it, who has to take it?

Incredibly difficult things to be rational about, and some horrible court cases would inevitably arise.

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.....

People like seeing their own characteristics or their partners inherited in a child

MrWalsh wrote: »

These are very interesting points. Should a donor be allowed to change their minds later?

What about if the child is born with something medical wrong - something that wasnt detected in the womb - but will have a catastrophic effect (financially, physically etc...) - if money has been paid I can see people backing out if this happened.

Two recent cases immediately spring to mind which encompasses both those circumstances actually -

The recent case in the UK where the biological mother was forced to hand over the child she had for a gay couple, and the Australian case where the couple rejected one twin because the child had downs syndrome.

I think these would be exceptional cases though that no matter how watertight the legislation and regulations were, cases like these are going to happen. Actually three cases - the lesbian couple who had a child with a surrogate father in the Netherlands who then wanted access to the child.

Cases like these are going to happen, but they shouldn't set the standard as such for any surrogacy legislation. They should serve as guidelines rather than being seen as the norm in surrogacy cases.

MrWalsh wrote: »

Yes I agree.

I remember the downs syndrome case now - was it not true that the parents had asked the surrogate to abort the downs syndrome twin early in the pregnancy?

I guess that raises another question - what if the parents ask the surrogate to abort because something is wrong with the child and the surrogate says no?

The Australian case was particularly interesting (and horrible) because they still wanted the healthy twin. So siblings were being separated as well as a surrogate mother being left with the "unwanted" baby - I feel a bit shuddery thinking about it, although I do remember thinking at the time that if theyd asked her to abort and she chose not to then she was taking responsibility for the child.

An extreme case though.

The Australian couple have repeatedly said that they wanted to take the baby and the surrogate mother refused.

They also said that they were angry she didn't have the tests the agreed on earlier in pregnancy - by the time the baby's problems became clear, it was too late to consider termination.

So what I was reading a lot in the earlier pages was people saying that children need their biological parents, two things 1) the parents of the surrogate child may be the biological parents they just needed a different womb for carrying the child for whatever reason. 2) Children need someone to love them and give them clothes, shelter, food, water etc. but for the sake of this topic I will leave it at children need someone to love them.

Just because two people are biologically the parents of a child doesn't mean they're going to be good parents whether the biological mother carries the child or whether they use a surrogate or go through IVF.

To the people who said well why don't you just foster or adopt if you want kids:
Fostering and adoption are not easy solutions. Many parents wish to have children of their own as it is a special bond, you can see characteristics of both the parents and to some people that means everything. I know people who have gone through IVF and while it was tough and daunting the kids they had are fantastic and total images of their parents these people foster as well but really wanted their own kids so that was how they went about it and if you can bring that much joy into someones life then why not? (With regulation)

Fostering is not an easy option, knowing many, many people who have done it, it is one of the most difficult things I've seen (At least in Ireland I can't speak for anywhere else). I'm not sure the child ever feels like a normal part of the family because they have to keep going to meetings with social workers and to see their 'other family' which must be terribly difficult on both the child and the foster parents and other siblings who maybe are too young to understand why this sibling of theirs has two other parents. The foster parents also have to ask permission to do anything with the child so it's really like a long term babysitting service especially with the older kids. I guess fostering can turn to adoption which is a happy ending for all involved especially as some kids get a really tough start in life and maybe don't have the manners/discipline/drive/education that a child who has been with a stable family since birth/young age has - not that it's the child's fault but this I've seen can be very difficult on a family unit. how does this relate to the topic in hand? - Surrogacy allows parents to have a child that is theirs or partly theirs from birth, it is difficult but eliminates (in theory and I would presume a lot in practice) the strains that fostering can have as most of the difficulties are done before the child is even conceived.

I was adopted as a kid and to be honest it's the best thing that ever happened to me. Yes I know where my biological mother is and I've gathered why she didn't want me. While it's awful to think someone didn't want you it's even better to know that she was living in a country with the ability to get an abortion and didn't and then these people (my family) came along and without hesitation took me in as part of their own family. It was the best thing because I was now in a family with siblings, two parents who loved us all and who were willing to go above and beyond for us. I will add that it doesn't matter what gender my parents are, what matters is they loved us and cared for us. They sheltered us when they needed to and let us dive into whatever it was that we wanted to do. They saw us all through primary, secondary and 3rd level education and are still supporting us all in our adult lives and never once have I been made to feel any different to my siblings, we all got in trouble we all got rewarded when we were good, I just became one of them. Though even when everyone wants an adoption (both sides of it) it's not easy and can take years to go through. We were lucky ours were straight forward and due to close families I could begin my 'new life' immediately but if you're coming through the system it doesn't work out like that! It's much more difficult on everyone.
My point here is that, contrary to some posts I read, being a biological parent isn't the be all and end all.
So surrogacy - whether or not they are using donated egg/sperm can be a very good thing for parents and shouldn't have an adverse affect on the life of a child. I do think the child should be informed when (s)he is old enough to understand it especially if one of the reproductive cells was obtained through a donor. I'm lucky I have very open and honest parents and any question I've ever asked I've got an answer to or pointed in the right direction for information. But I realise my life is not the usual and I happen to be very fortunate!

I understand that there are complications around surrogacy due to bonding of the woman carrying the child and the child and also exploitation. However with regulation, consent and a set of legal guidelines it should be available.

TL;DR - If two people want a child and love it unconditionally and can find a consenting surrogate, then with a set of legal guidelines I don't see why it shouldn't be an option.