Poll: Should surrogacy be available for fertile, straight couples.

[Ronald Nand]

Recently my mum found and article about a Bollywood Actor (ShahRukh Khan if anyone is interested) having a child with surrogacy, but my mum got annoyed that his wife was fertile and had two children before via natural means and she used surrogacy to have the child.

Anyway this got me thinking should surrogacy be an option for a fertile straight couple?

I personally believe its not a big deal, Science gives us options and if a woman chooses to use an option to avoid the hardship and sacrifice of natural birth, then that's their choice. As long as the child is healthy and the parents of the child love the child, and are good parents.

I'll never understand what its like to have a child grow inside my body, but if an adoptive/gay parent can have a deep emotional connection with the child, then I think the process of giving birth to the child isn't all that important for the connection.

 

[God'sFist]

I think it's less should and more why not? if that makes any sense. My main question about the whole ordeal is why they wanted surrogacy.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Sure, why not? I mean, if they have the money to do it, and a willing surrogate I don't see what the problem is.

People often forget how dangerous child birth actually is, and the fact that it used to be (and still is in some third world countries) one of the leading causes of death for women. In fact, historically about 1 in 100 women would die during live births (and the number is much higher for births in which there were complications which killed the child).

So why are maternal death rates so important to understanding this story? Because the people in this story are a Bollywood actor and his wife. Guess which country had the greatest amount of maternal deaths in the world last year. That's right, India.

So is it wrong for people to have a surrogate give birth for them? It's no less wrong than having firefighters fight your fires for you, or police officers protect you from criminals.

 

[Wickatricka]

Why not adopt then? Seems like it would be better then bringing another child into the world.

 

[ShiningAmber]

Of course it should be an option. Some women don't want to be pregnant. I find some people have a really hard time wrapping their head around that. Heterosexuality shouldn't even matter.

 

[Talvrae]

As long as the state stay as far aways as possibe of it i don't mind. Who am i to tell what grown up consenting adult do with theyr body...

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

As long as they are paying for it, sure.

It would be better if they adopted of course...

 

[Jadak]

I've never been under the impression that surrogacy was a free public service with limited supply. If that were the case, then sure, perhaps it would be better to dedicate available "resources" to those unable to reproduce themselves.

What I am under the impression of is that it's more of a business deal, with those wanting a child paying the surrogate for this arrangement. With that being the case, then too fucking bad for anyone who objects? Surrogacy should be limited to those willing and able to pay for such an arrangement, end of story.

What surprises me more is, after reading into the story there was apparently some controversy as a result of the babies sex being pre-selected, which is apparently prohibited. I hadn't even known that was at the level of actually taking place, here's hoping it's a common legal option if I ever choose to have kids.

 

[Depulcator]

It seems strange to me, but it's a choice. As long as both party's have a fair legal agreement worked out I don't see why not.

 

[Colour Scientist]

Of course it should be available.
Provided all parties are willing, I don't see what the issue is?

 

[Starik20X6]

Absolutely. My only qualifier would be if there was some kind of surrogate shortage, in which case those who cannot conceive naturally should receive preferential treatment.

... How does it even work? Is there like a place you go to and sign up to be a surrogate? Or is it on the prospective parents to seek someone out who is willing to carry a child for them?

 

[Teoes]

OP: did your Mum give any reasons for being annoyed? I don't see the issue and I bet most people around here would have the same opinion.

 

[Voulan]

I voted 'No' simply because I feel surrogacy should be an option for people that cannot have children naturally or for same-sex couples in the priority. I'm okay with it as a choice though, but I'd rather it be left for those other couples - especially if surrogate carriers are in the minority (which I believe they are), and if it uses public healthcare finances.

If there are enough carriers and it isn't unnecessarily costing the state, then certainly.

 

[Ronald Nand]

OP: did your Mum give any reasons for being annoyed? I don't see the issue and I bet most people around here would have the same opinion.

She finds it immoral that a woman's body part is treated like a commodity/service and also unnatural, she thinks we shouldn't tamper with the natural order. She also finds it selfish that the woman wants the child but is unwilling to do the birth.

I don't agree but I can kind of see where she is coming from, she doesn't fully oppose surrogacy though she still supports surrogacy when its for gay people and infertile couples.

 

[Esotera]

It should be available but discouraged. As long as there aren't any problems with fertility or potential complications during delivery, you should be doing it yourself if possible. Implanting an embryo to a surrogate is riskier than the natural method, and there's the potential that you could run into some interesting legal troubles if the surrogate refuses to give the baby to you after birth.