What is your stance on surrogate births?

Surrogacy has always been a controversial method and many happy outcomes have resulted. But there are psychosocial effects of surrogacy on both the biological and surrogate parents. I believe surrogacy has become highly appealing to couples who can afford it. Unfortunately the legal issues involved in surrogacy have not been clarified to keep pace with the increasing demand. Therefore so many legal pitfalls can be encountered that a prospective parent has to do careful homework and proceed with caution before choosing surrogacy as a path to parenthood. The bottom line is that prospective parents must be legally careful in negotiating this particular path to parenthood in order to protect their rights and the well-being of potential children

My stance is that it's no-one's business other than the surrogate mother, the parents who will take the child, and the child itself. That is, with the exception of some regulations to ensure the rights of all parties involved. Everyone else should shut the hell up and mind their own business.

Women not in the first world just don't have it tough enough, so let's open the door wider to an unnecessary social construct that turns them into baby factory machines for someone higher up the ladder. The year is 2014, and there are 7 billion of us. What is the actual need for this?

It does make me very uneasy, but it's very difficult to articulate my objection. Since giving birth does change the body, it does strike me as being similar to selling a kidney

I think getting true informed consent from the surrogate mother is very problematic, especially when we are dealing with third world countries where some people will agree to anything to make a better life for their families.

I also wonder if there are any studies on the children who are born to surrogate mothers? Do they feel like they have only one mother or two. I feel like I would want to know who my surrogate mother is as well.

I agree with both Strangerland and Jeff. No one else's business assuming that the rights of all (and especially the child) are properly protected; but with so many children and babies in children's homes and orphanages around the world literally crying out for someone to take them home and love them, I don't see the point.

:-o I cannot believe some of the responses I'm reading here. Can you not see how exploitative the whole scenario is?

Imagine if your sister (or female cousin, or BFF) fell on hard times, and received an offer from a very wealthy person to borrow her womb for a year in exchange for a large sum of money. Would you be all like "yeah, sounds like a great deal to me!" Why not just advise her to sell a kidney, and be done with it?

Not fair for the baby.

Every mammal naturally attaches to the same body that carried it. The baby can sense the rhythm of the heart beat and the scent of the mother.

Every mammal feels absolute comfort in its mother's arms for this reason.

Let's not fiddle with nature here.

And anyways, the body is a sacred thing, it shouldn't be sold off for money, for any reason.

Not fair for the baby.

Why not? There are many people who are the product of happy childhoods having been raised by foster or adoptive parents. Love is not limited by biology.

Every mammal feels absolute comfort in its mother's arms for this reason.

There are plenty of cases of human babies being abused by their natural mothers, too. There are happy families of all types. I see no reason to limit the possibilities.

Let's not fiddle with nature here.

Humans fiddle with nature all the time. If you have taken any sort of medication, you have fiddled with nature. What is wrong with giving couples who cannot have a child on their own the chance to have one this way?

And anyways, the body is a sacred thing, it shouldn't be sold off for money, for any reason.

In my opinion, it is okay for you to think of your own body in this way, but I don't think you have the right to tell others what they can and cannot do with theirs.

Tessa:

Why not just advise her to sell a kidney, and be done with it?

Because once that kidney's sold, it's gone for good. Your womb will still be with you after your pregnancy.

cleo:

but with so many children and babies in children's homes and orphanages around the world literally crying out for someone to take them home and love them, I don't see the point.

I do agree that people should think about adoption more as there are so many unwanted children. But the Japanese, unlike say the Chinese and many in the west, are not into adoption.

Imagine if your sister (or female cousin, or BFF) fell on hard times, and received an offer from a very wealthy person to borrow her womb for a year in exchange for a large sum of money. Would you be all like "yeah, sounds like a great deal to me!"

If she is ok with it, why not? I'd have no problem with it.

This is a lot like the prostitution debate. Someone has money, someone else has a body they're prepared to let the other person use.

Personally I'm all for allowing people to make their own choices, without paternalistic and condescending governments interfere in their right to make a living.

However, there is a third party here, the child. I do think that some regulation is required to ensure that the child is going to a loving and caring family with the means to take care of the child, much like an adoption.

After all third-world adoptions by first-world parents are closely monitored for abuse, so why should surrogate pregnancies be any different? After all we only have the word of a potentially corrupt 3rd world clinic that this isn't in fact a disguised adoption, and that the child is in fact the genetic progeny of the people who claim to be the parents. There's far too much scope for abuse, and I'd suggest that, at minimum, the same standards be applied as are applied to adoptions.

During gestation a mother becomes very much attached to her baby which makes it hard and painful to just hand over the new born to a stranger, although it seemed a lucrative transaction at the outset. To protect the mother and her child and the 'buyer' international regulations are in order, which makes the whole affair a nightmare. A fetus growing in the womb into a human being feels the emotions of the mother that will affect it for the rest of its life, presumably. Surrogacy, ordering a baby like ordering a consumer product, I consider as an unbecoming business deal. Like Cleo stated there are millions of unwanted babies, children. Give these beings a chance instead of creating a very controversial situation. Just my opinion.

Public involvement should be limited to providing standard contracts and a some laws, such as one saying the hiring parents can't walk if they don't like the baby. Stay out of peoples' business. If guy wants a 100 babies a year, let him.

turbotsatAug. 19, 2014 - 11:53PM JST Public involvement should be limited to providing standard contracts and a some laws, such as one saying the hiring parents can't walk if they don't like the baby. Stay out of peoples' business. If guy wants a 100 babies a year, let him.

... and to hell with the rights of those babies? Wow, you're a real piece of work turbotsat.

Did you really think babies have rights compared to adults? Penalty for child murder commonly less than that for murder of adult. Baby subject to legal termination up to birth and a little fractional bit after (partial birth abortion). Government doesn't agree with you.

But, i should say, if a RICH guy wants 100 babies a year, that he can SUPPORT, let him. Which is another point. Dennis Rodman (NBA basketball star)'s dad had 53 children (assuming he stopped at the point I read about it). Ran off to (Thailand?), possibly to avoid child support, where he was living with two women, maybe making more babies. No law in place to prevent him having as many babies as he wanted, other than the burden imposed by child support.

Turbotsat - just because there is no law in place doesn't mean there shouldn't be a law in place. Technology always outpaces legislation.

53 kids is just insane. No parent could provide love and support to that many kids.

Maybe it was just 29. Rodman might have been angry when he said 48 and the number went up from there.

It's not legal to have as many kids as you want, though. Unfortunately. Law should restrict people to the number of kids they can support. If rich people have more I won't begrudge them.

http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/08/15/just-for-the-record-rodman-only-has-28-siblings/

Philander Rodman, Dennis’ father, sets the record straight. Says he has 29 kids. Not 47.