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

[Greg White]

Can't say I have any reason to go against it.

The only major concern I can think of coming up would be if the surrogate doesn't want to give up the child to the biological parents. Would there be a way to force them to give up the child or would they be SOL because the surrogate is technically the birth mother, even if she isn't the biological one.

 

[Lieju]

Can't say I have any reason to go against it.

The only major concern I can think of coming up would be if the surrogate doesn't want to give up the child to the biological parents. Would there be a way to force them to give up the child or would they be SOL because the surrogate is technically the birth mother, even if she isn't the biological one.

Well, according to this;
https://www.gov.uk/rights-for-surrogate-mothers

No. (In the UK, anyway)

The surrogate mother is the legal mother, which surprised me. I would have thought the biological mother had some rights, or that the contract giving those rights away could be enforced.

Kinda makes me wonder what would happen if the biological mother decides she doesn't want the child.

But apparently the legal side to this is complicated.

http://www.hfea.gov.uk/1424.html

 

[Gatx]

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.

Except India's a large country with a lot of poor people living in terrible conditions which would raise the number of deaths for the nation as whole, and this person, as the wife of a famous actor who could afford the cost of getting a surrogate mother, wouldn't be at nearly the same risk as those people.

Anyway, no big deal that they want to do it, whatever their reasons are I guess.

 

[Robot Number V]

Let me ask you this...What would the point in making it NOT available to them? What could that possibly accomplish?

It starts with best intentions, and it'll end somewhere in a facility where you bring a cup of sperm and an egg and pick up a live baby 9 months later.

Uh...What's wrong with that? Seriously, I have absolutely no moral qualms about the situation you just described. Sounds pretty great to me.

 

[axeaxe]

Imagine you mother tell you: My job/comfort/ex was more important than you, so i just payed somebody else to get me you, you know, like a toy i wanted so much.

Why in all the metters about abortion, surogacy, and such, the child and it`s feelings are ignored, as if the child is indeed some sort of thing, feelingless and devoid of any need of accountability and resect.

Why do people draw the line between adoption and "having your child". The two are different. Why do we draw the line between parents and adopters? Because it`s not the same. Surogacy is basically an adoption.

By all means, people can have that, and banning it makes no sence. However, I think that child should know about who is his/her genetical perents, who carried it, and how took care of it. And surrogate perents should be ready to find out that child can be less than pleased about thet.

I woul not speak with my mother if that would be what she did. I would just leave after i`m 20, and send her a check(when i`m 30 or something) and would never see her again, because perents are not a bank that gives yuo a credit tll you`re 20 or something, and than would expect to collect.
Perents should be about love, care, and in some case, personal sacrifice, of comfort, time and effort.

 

[Lightknight]

My only qualm would be about the difficulty of the "employee" (the surrogate) entering or exiting the agreement at ease. We'd get into a scenario not entirely unlike bond-servanthood. Couples who are incapable of doing it themselves have a medical excuse for needing one whereas why would a healthy fertile couple need it aside from just not wanting to look fat or to put in the time? To me, this would be similar to whether or not it's ok to implant a third Kidney from a willing Donor into a healthy individual with two healthy kidneys.

There are plenty of situations where fertile individuals may have health concerns. For example, I have a friend who has kidney problems that prevent them from safely having children despite them being able to get pregnant.

But a perfectly healthy couple who just has money to burn? There's something wrong about that. Like they're buying a bond servant for nine months instead of compensating someone for donating their uterus to compensate for a medical issue.

 

[Murais]

I see no legal basis for banning the practice, but on a personal level I find it incredibly selfish.

Having children is about sacrifice, compromise, and discomfort on your own part for the sake of the betterment of a tiny version of yourself. Pregnancy is like the intro stage to that. And the birthing process, while painful, is said to be one of the most crucial bonding moments for a mother and child, especially the hormones that facilitate that "link" for the first 30 minutes after.

With infertile or homosexual couples, skipping this process makes a whole lot of sense to me. Even those who would have a very high-risk pregnancy were they to go through with it that would leave them incredibly ill or near-death.

Not doing it because you're afraid of birth and stretchmarks? That's inherently vain, and you probably shouldn't be having children in the first place.

I've got a very similar axe to grind with elective c-sections. Except with more "whatthefuckareyoudoingthat'sanemergencysurgerythatcantotallykillyouorcausepermanentfuckingdamageyouidiot."

 

[Call me Baz]

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.

How does sexuality not matter? You can't expect two fertile gay men to have a child without surrogacy.

I'm not that sure with some facts of this, but as long as:
1) There are no shortages/excess demands of surrogate mothers
2) There are no extra risks associated with this over regular childbirth

... then I don't see why not really. I do understand there's a chance of some illnesses or circumstances that can put some women at more risk than others of serious injury or death in childbirth, so that is foremost in my mind.

If it's just because "Oh my gawd, like, I'm so beautiful I just don't want to have a child and ruin my figure" then I actually tend against the idea. Perhaps that's just spite towards people that want something without expecting to give anything back.

EDIT: Further to the point made about "not wanting to be pregnant", they should probably consider adoption since there's plenty of children that need care.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

If all parties agree to the deal, then who am I to say no? The ability to manufacturer a human being is an in demand industry that only a small fraction of the human population can manage at any given time and it one that takes certain tolls on the person in question. If, for whatever reason, someone is in a position to sacrifice some resource in exchange for another person paying they physical toll and that other person thinks it's a good deal then it sounds like a perfectly reasonable transaction.

It's a choice that shouldn't be there for healthy couples. The fear of a discomfort is not reasonable grounds for surrogacy. What do they expect raising the child to be? A fucking party?

The fun thing about this little question is that "reasonable grounds" are largely just rolled into the total package of the deal. If a surrogate to be decides the couple in question doesn't have what they believe to be reasonable grounds for the exchange, perhaps she could be persuaded with a larger monetary incentive. In the end though, the people who's opinions ultimately matter on the subject are those who are participating. The surrogate is there of her own volition - if they decide they want to pay the physical price of carrying a child (and the potential emotional price down the road when it's given away) in exchange for whatever they agreed to, that is their call. Likewise, if a fertile female believes "fear of discomfort" (or indeed, any reason under the sun) is a reasonable basis upon which to seek the services of a surrogate, then it works on that end.

Your opinion on the matter is entirely irrelevant unless you happen to be one of the participants!

If the woman miscarries then that is another story, but a healthy woman who hasn't even attempted (or has successfully given birth already) shouldn't have this option. Adoption is a perfectly suitable compromise.

It actually isn't a very good compromise at all. What with the child in question being a creation that you literally had no part in, even on a genetic level it's actually a fair step further away.

In this case, it's like arguing that if a woman is capable of producing viable milk, she shouldn't have access to formula.

 

[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.

Except India's a large country with a lot of poor people living in terrible conditions which would raise the number of deaths for the nation as whole, and this person, as the wife of a famous actor who could afford the cost of getting a surrogate mother, wouldn't be at nearly the same risk as those people.

Anyway, no big deal that they want to do it, whatever their reasons are I guess.

India may have a lot of poor people who live in terrible conditions, but there's a lot of other countries out there that have poor people living in conditions that are just as bad, if not worse. Yet India still beat out all those other countries in terms of maternal deaths. It's not just about how poor some of the country's population is, India has a ton of disease, which no one is immune to, regardless of how rich you are. India still has the bubonic plague for god's sake. The fucking bubonic plague!

 

[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.

How does sexuality not matter? You can't expect two fertile gay men to have a child without surrogacy.

I'm not that sure with some facts of this, but as long as:
1) There are no shortages/excess demands of surrogate mothers
2) There are no extra risks associated with this over regular childbirth

... then I don't see why not really. I do understand there's a chance of some illnesses or circumstances that can put some women at more risk than others of serious injury or death in childbirth, so that is foremost in my mind.

If it's just because "Oh my gawd, like, I'm so beautiful I just don't want to have a child and ruin my figure" then I actually tend against the idea. Perhaps that's just spite towards people that want something without expecting to give anything back.

EDIT: Further to the point made about "not wanting to be pregnant", they should probably consider adoption since there's plenty of children that need care.

Sexuality does not matter. It shouldn't matter. Your sexuality should not grant/deny you anything. If a heterosexual couple wants a surrogate for a child. Fine, their business. If a homosexual couple wants a surrogate for a child. Fine, their business.

Whatever the woman's reasoning is, it's her choice and her body. She doesn't need your permission and approval for anything. I know it's hard to wrap your head around that.

 

[Call me Baz]

snip

snip

Sexuality does not matter. It shouldn't matter. Your sexuality should not grant/deny you anything. If a heterosexual couple wants a surrogate for a child. Fine, their business. If a homosexual couple wants a surrogate for a child. Fine, their business.

Whatever the woman's reasoning is, it's her choice and her body. She doesn't need your permission and approval for anything. I know it's hard to wrap your head around that.

Do not begin to turn this into something personal, it is not "hard to wrap my head around" someone being beyond my control, it is perfectly understandable. This is an opinion/discussion thread so keep it somewhat impersonal, thank you.

The reason I say sexuality matters is because homosexual couples are either not physically able to have children without a surrogate, or require IVF at the least.

Heterosexual AND FERTILE couples do not REQUIRE a surrogate mother. "If you can, do. If you can not, do not" right? Except surrogacy is a method that turns it into "If you can not, get someone who can do." Which is perfectly fine. I was merely outlining why I have a differing opinion of surrogacy being utilised by different groups of people.