Should surrogate motherhood be allowed?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Surrogacy is a way to bring the happiness of parenthood to a couple who would otherwise not have bee...
Surrogacy is a way to bring the happiness of parenthood to a couple who would otherwise not have been able to enjoy it, either due to biological circumstances ( for example infertile or same-sex couples ), or the unavailability of a child for adoption. The joy of parenthood is something that every couple should be able to experience.
Contrary to the assumptions that underlie the proposition case, parenthood is not a fundamental human right. Besides, surrogacy is so controversial, and so traumatic for all concerned, that more conventional methods such as adoption should be used instead. Parents should not put their own desire to be parents over the possible damage it might cause to the baby.
There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation. Even if commercialisation does occur...
There is no need for money payments to ever enter the equation. Even if commercialisation does occur, it would be controlled by strict laws and regulated by independent bodies, as is currently the case in the US. If standard charges were fixed there would simply be no room for a market to develop, thus ensuring that all had access to a surrogate if they wanted.
Surrogacy will eventually and inevitably become commercialised, with mothers ‘hiring out’ their wombs to the highest bidder. Even if charges are standardised, the high level of such a fee will still ena that the rich are more likely to benefit than the poor, as they are more likely to be able to afford the cost. No case of parenthood should simply be decided by financial factors.
However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made non-financial by allowing a friend of the famil...
However, surrogacy arrangements could easily be made non-financial by allowing a friend of the family to be the surrogate, hence avoiding any legal wrangling after the birth, which can often happen when strangers are involved. It would also avoid the situation where a child has a stranger as their natural mother, which has been known to cause them problems.
This arrangement would in fact create more problems than it solved, as such an unofficial arrangement would be a legal nightmare if the surrogate decided ( as has often happened ) to keep the baby, as she would of course be the child’s legal mother. Important links are formed between mother and baby in the first nine months, and to forcibly sever these links would be devastating for all concerned. Also, it would be far more confusing and damaging for the child if their biological mother was someone who from an early age they had known as a friend of their ‘parents’.
On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced properly, but would merely lead to t...
On a practical note, no law against surrogacy could be enforced properly, but would merely lead to the physical impregnation of the surrogate by the would-be father, rather than a clean surgical procedure that avoided the emotional problems caused by an actual sexual act between the surrogate and the would-be father.
Even if there would be problems in enforcing a ban, we should still lay down the law; such an argument used against, say, growing cannabis at home would not invalidate a ban on drugs. Surrogacy is bad for both the mother and the child, and is beset by emotional problems for all concerned. Parents should not put their own interests above their child’s.
What do you think?