A Right to Have Children? A Discussion about Surrogacy

Do you think there should be a right to have children? As far as I am aware, you need training and a licence for pretty much everything these days that imposes some form of societal responsibility, except the most important thing of all: having a child. For many couples, the only way they will ever have their own children (ie, as opposed to adoption) is if somebody else carries and delivers their baby. Yet, surrogacy is actually illegal in many parts of Australia regardless of whether it is 'altruistic' or 'commercial' surrogacy. Where it is permitted, the surrogate mother is noted as being the legal mother on the child's birth certificate even though she is not the biological mother. The biological mother will need to legally adopt her own child.

It saddens me when I see people have children who are clearly unfit for parenthood. There are those who have children just for the welfare payments. It saddens me even more when I see couples who really, really want children but just can't have them naturally or via IVF. I'm personally 100% for altruistic surrogacy and support moves to to abolish laws in Australia which make altruistic surrogacy illegal. My wife may well become a surrogate for a couple who are our close friends and who have been trying with IVF for over 5 years (and over $150K).

So, what are yout thoughts? Should people (I'm talking about single people, heterosexual couples, honosexual couples) have a right to bring children into the world? If so, why. If not, why not? If so, do you support the concept of surrogacy?

 

I think that if heterosexual couples are allowed to have kids, then single parents and homosexual couple should as well. They, especially the latter, often provide better homes (since they have to make the decision to adopt or to otherwise have kids) than people who don't have access to birth control or don't use it. So many unwanted kids end up in horrible situations, and I think it's better that two people who would love and take care of a child are much better than shuttling a kid between foster homes.

And I think surrogacy should be legal. It's the only way some people have kids and if they can find someone who is willing to carry the child for them, I think it's wonderful.

 

No.

Too many people already.

Goooooooooo adoption!

 

There is such thing as the law. Society (the state) can deprive couple of parental rights (parental authority). If the situation is really bad for the child, the court and the judje will decide if this child must be taken away from parents.

I have personal experience of pregnancy and birth. I can't imagine how a woman can give away the baby that was in her, was a part of her, that grew in her day by day. I remember talking to my unborn baby, and how he moved in me, and nudged me, and I remember the morning I woke up after he was born. The doctors kept him in the intensive care for a week, and it was the most terrible week of my life. I felt that I was robbed, they took him away from me right after he was born (I saw him for about 30 seconds and then I went unconscious because they used general anesthesia to sew me up.) Probably it is my strong maternal instinct. I care about my son because he is my own flesh and blood. I'd never agree to become a surrogate mother, it's against my very nature.

I think heterosexual couples have a right to adopt children whose parents abandoned them (parents have died, went to prison, ran off, etc). Single person should not bring up a child. My parents divorced when I was 7 years old, and I know how bad it is to grow up without father. Homosexual couples is an unhealthy thing, I do not approve it, and I think they should not have the right to adopt children.

No, I am against it. I think adoption is just fine. There are many orphan children in this world, they need parents.

 

I see nothing wrong with surrogacy IF it is carefully considered and the surrogate is emotionally and pyschologically capable of "giving up" that child. Sadly, same aren't, yet many are.

Single folks, homomsexual couples - sure, why not. Under usual circumstances, two loving parents are often better than one loving parent, but not all couples have two involved parents, either.

I do think single parents, whether single or divorced single, ideally should seek out adult role models of the other sex.

I never knew a kid with divorced parents until my high school years (she became my best friend) and quite frankly the divorce was the greatest thing to happen to my friend (female, the oldest child, when she was about 12 or so, I believe).

It was the worst possible thing, in some ways, for her one year younger brother.

Every family is different, and I don't think we should put our own limitations upon others.

I do think adoption should be considered as an alternative, but the choice is the potential parent(s) to make in the end.

 

Me too. Being able to help another couple have children is something I think you would be proud of all of your life.

Yeah, I'm well aware of the law and I know for a fact in my part of the world the government department which is responsible for administering the law (Department of Community Services - DOCS) is completely ineffectual. We have a system to protect children but unfortunately the system does not work, which is also very sad. Hopefully, the last few child deaths through neglect and violence will prompt a commission into the current system and fundamentally overhaul it. But I disgress. My point was simply that it is very sad seeing people go through hell trying to have children when others have children for stupid reasons or can't even bother to look after them.

We have two kids (three year old twin boys) and another on the way so I agree that this a very valid concern. The main difference with a surrogacy is that the embryo will be the product of somebody elses fertilized egg. The surrogate mother is not the biological mother and acts simply as the incubator. However, the surrogate mother will still have to carry and deliver the baby and so there is no doubt there will be an emotional connection there. Becoming a surrogate mother is obviously a very personal choice and is not for everyone.

Yes, adoption is another option, although very difficult in Australia (unless you are Angelina Jolie). Perhaps the adoption process should be eased if the government insists on making surrogacy illegal?

I agree completely. Surrogacy has to be very carefully considered. It's not the kind of thing you should do on a whim. That's why I'm not really a big fan of the 'commercial' surrogacy concept. What is described as 'altruistic' surrogacy normally takes place within a family or within a close friendship scenario so the emotional aspects can be treated with the respect and care they deserve.

 

Yeah, I'm well aware of the law and I know for a fact in my part of the world the government department which is responsible for administering the law (Department of Community Services - DOCS) is completely ineffectual. We have a system to protect children but unfortunately the system does not work, which is also very sad. Hopefully, the last few child deaths through neglect and violence will prompt a commission into the current system and fundamentally overhaul it.

Unfortunately, the responsible government agency is usually underfunded, sometimes faulty, facing conflicting viewpoints (Support Parents Rights whenever possible!) and often reactive.

In the State of Washington we have had several cases, tragic cases, where kids were killed when all indications were the child should have been removed from the home.

Everyone gets bent out of shape (rightfully) at DSHS when this happens, but when anyone can have kids, most taxpayers don't want to support the state government through taxes (in Washington it's all sales tax, not income tax), and social workers are woefully overworked with caseloads far in excess of they should be - too many fall through the cracks.

Who pays the price?

The abused child, the fired social worker, the government who "didn't properly oversee" the workers.

Umm - the bad parent, too, I would think.

.

 

Bad things happen. Truly, this is very sad. It is about evil, cruel people, criminals. Even if child's death is an "involuntary manslaughter" (killing by recklessness), even if a parent looked away and a child hurt himself, even then it is a crime. Children and grown-ups, everyone can get in trouble and die, that's how life ends, sooner or later. It is tragic.

To me the phrase "biological mother acts as incubator" sounds bad. I read medical articles about surrogate mothers, and I read stories about it, and to me such situation sounds not good. It's not fair for surrogate mother - either she doesn't love the baby she carries which seems unnatural, either she suffers when she delivers the baby and gives the baby away. It does not seem right to me. "Emotional connection" is actually about mother's love for the child.

There are conditions for adoption. In my country the necessary requirements are reasonable - two parents, normal living conditions (room for the child), enough money, clean reputation. The state wouldn't give the child on adoption to alchocholics or criminals.

This is theory, and the laws. But the system does not work properly, as you have mentioned yourself. Speak of adopted russian children killed recently by maniacs in USA, and of illegal commercial transplantations and such.

I think the same.

Honestly, I saw such situation in some brasilian soap opera. I don't know if "altruistic surrogacy" exists in real life. I thought it was mostly commercial and about money.

 

Well, to use a fairly well-known fictional case, on the TV show FRIENDS, Phoebe's brother and his wife can't have kids so they ask her to do it for them. She didn't do it out of love for the babies but out of love for her brother, knowing how happy this would make him. She has a hard time giving them up at the end because she did carry them for nine months, but she knew she would have to do it at the end and she did it anyway. I think as long as the surrogate mother knows that it's going to be hard going in but does it out of love for someone else, it should just be between the three or four people involved.

 

I guess the simple way of putting it is that the surrogate mother does not consider the baby she is carrying to be her child. It is biologically someone elses child, not part of your flesh and blood. In theory, the surrogate mother does not develop the same feelings as she would if it were her own child. In practice though this would be quite difficult I think. It would be easier I guess if the surrogate mother had her own children.

Oh yeah, it does very much exist outside of soaps.

 

I'm all for people doing whatever they want so long as people aren't hurt... I think adoption is better, in general, but thats a moral thing and how I right now put values on the situation. But if someone wants to explore the surrogacy option, they should have the right to.

 

I normally think people should be allowed to do whatever they want to. As-long-as-folks-aren't-hurt.
But there's something about the child wish that I think is out of whack. I have the idea the importance that's being given to it has cut it a lot of slack.

When the world is creeking in its shingles, when millions of people are dying from starvation I don't see why someone who can't have a child but just really wants one shouldn't have to do something in return. For the world. Or something. It just seems a bit... spoiled.

Does that make sense to anyone?

 

SuperWatto, aren't they generally, you know, paying for it? Its not as though the government is paying for surrogate parenting, or at least, not to my knowledge.

 

I think that even in altruistic surrogacy, the paernts who get the child at least pay all the medical expenses and other pregnancy-related things (maternity clothes etc.).

 

Absolutely. Generally all medical expenses will paid and other related items (maternity clothes, gym membership and in some rare cases plastic surgery!). I guess it depends on the circumstances of the surrogate mother, ie, if she has to leave work on unpaid maternity leave etc. In those jurisdictions where there is no law behind surrogacy agreements then the provisions of the agreements are not enforceable. However, as far as I am aware, in most family and close friend altrustic surrogacies there is generally no need for a written agreement in any case. All that happens is that another person actually carries your baby for you, but you still bear all of the expenses of pregancy and of course once the child is born you will bear the expense of having children, for life (BTW, my eldest is now 19 so I can assure you it never ends).

I realise there are a lot of unwanted kids out there but I think it is perfectly natural and nunderstandable that a couple might want to have a child which is biologically theirs if that is possible. If it is not possible, then adoption would be the next step. If we go ahead with our surrogacy plans I think it will be the best gift that we can ever give another person.

 

That's the least! Imagine... "I can't have a child, I can't afford it.. But I really really want one!"

A gift! We're talking about a living human being here.

But alright, I've sobered up and I'll relax my stance: if anyone can convince me that the world population isn't perilously close to the tipping point, I won't argue no more.

 

I have to say, if I can't have kids of my own, I'd probably just adopt (giving birth sucks anyway). There are plenty of kids out there who need good families. However, I'm only eighteen and I haven't ever met anyone I'd want to have kids with so take that with a gain of salt. But, I can understand (in a sort of I've never been there so I don't really understand, but I sort of at least comprehend the reasoning behind her actions) why a woman would want to have a kid that's carries her genetic line.

LostonHoth, you never know - maybe after your gets through college (if he/she's in college) you'll get to stop paying for everything?

I think calling it a gift is the right word. You're giving them their child. And maybe gift isn't a strong enough word, but it suits better than anything else I can think of.

 

Well, it's not the kind of gift that comes wrapped in paper with a small card and bow attached and once unwrapped and played with finds its way under the bed where it stays neglected and forgotten until you move house. Think of it like donating a kidney or something. If you are organ donor, the recipient of that organ will quite rightly be to say that you the donor gave them the 'gift' of life. This is where I'm coming from with the 'gift' comment.

I don't know about the rest of the world Watto but Australia has a very small population and we actually need to increase it. So much so that our government has actually been paying baby 'bonuses' as a financial incentive to have more children (the bonus is designed to offset the cost of having a baby but of course it is very much abused and many people just go out and buy a plasma TV instead). Presumably your objection to having children because of world overpopulation will apply to all child birth and not just a child birth via a surrogate mother?

 

And I understand having some Chinese immigrate is a bit of a hot potato, right?

Sometimes I think, we should count ourselves lucky that they had this one-kid rule... Otherwise there'd be two billion Chinese upping the ante now.

Anyway, I do realize that my position on having children is kinda unrelated to surrogacy, so I'll abandon this now in favor of staying on topic.

 

Heh, two billion or potentially more Chinese.

I don't even want to think about what that'd do to China. Nothing good.

And, an appropriately grim onion.com article:

Chinese woman has septuplets, has one week to choose

 

Do chinese in the cityes ,,make,, lesss children then the ones in rural areas?

 

That woman who had octoplets already had six children. I feel about this the same way I do about the Canadians Mormons...if you want 23 children, then fund it yourselves.

 

And she's a single mother, and all the kids are from in-vitro, and three of the kids she already has are autistic, and she went bankrupt less than two years ago, and her mother actually kicked her out of the house thinking that would make her stop having kids.

It's just stupid.

 

She's obviously a head case.