Commercial surrogacy is the commodification of babies, promotion of eugenics and exploitation of women therefore it is not ethically permissible. To be clear commercial surrogacy is where the surrogate mother receives monetary compensation for services usually through a broker agency. Do not confuse this with altruistic surrogacy where a woman is inspired to carry a child for another couple so they may have a child of their own. Altruistic surrogacy receives no monetary compensation and therefore is not a part of the debate. There are two ways surrogacy works. One is called partial surrogacy where the surrogate is the genetic mother, meaning she provided the egg and the sperm is either the biological father or a donor. Second full surrogacy …show more content…
That the industry is helping them to better themselves and their families by providing this much needed service. The exploitation involved to these women negates that argument. I will refer to an earlier example of an India woman that may have been forced by her husband or other family member to engage in being a surrogate. Here in the U.S a woman may not be forced by family to engage in surrogacy however her bleak financial situation can force her into surrogacy as a chance to earn income without having to leave home to work. Commercial surrogacy exploits women who live in poverty or barely above. There is also an argument that commercial surrogacy is no different than donating sperm. I counter that with the fact that there is not an emotional attachment to the sperm. Men do not feel the sperm living inside of them, or moving around. Men also do not run health risks by carrying their sperm nor do they run any health risks donating their sperm. Commercial surrogacy involves not only health risks to the mother but can put her in a difficult place psychologically. This is not an issue in sperm
They claim that the practice of surrogate mothering breaks down the traditional family. They also claim the practice exploits women and is, thus, anti-feminist. Meanwhile, they also argue that if money is being transferred to the biological mother, then this practice is essentially baby selling, and they conclude that
The woman who conceives, carries and gives birth to the child is called the surrogate mother. There are two types of surrogacy: traditional surrogacy and gestational surrogacy. Traditional surrogacy involves the sperm from the intended father (also known as the sperm donor) and the egg of the surrogate mother. Therefore, in this case, the surrogate mother is the genetic mother of the child. The second type is gestational surrogacy. Gestational surrogacy involves the extraction of the egg from the intended mother, and the transfer of the embryo into the surrogate’s uterus. This means that the surrogate mother is not genetically related to the child. Within the two types of surrogacy, there are two types of surrogacy arrangements: altruistic (non-commercial) and commercial. Under the Surrogacy Act 2010 (Qld), a commercial surrogacy arrangement is when a person receives payment, reward, or other material benefit or advantage for entering into the surrogacy arrange...
Surrogate pregnancy was talked about and questioned in the early 1970’s but was not put into practice until 1976. The first case documented actually comes from the bible. It was the story of Abraham and Sarah. Sarah talks about her experience with infertility. She then turns to Hagar, her handmaiden, and asks her if she would carry their child for them since she was unable to. Hagar was their maid so in a way it was a command, not exactly a favor or question.
Many Christian-funded embryo adoption centers accept embryo donations free of charge so they can match them up with other couples experiencing the struggles of infertility (Christian Embryobank, 2016). Embryo adoption, is essentially like adopting a child, even if the terminology is not always the same. For starters, many women want to experience the joy of carrying a baby in their womb, and embryo adoption can allow them to do that. Christian Embryo bank, 2016).
The advancement and continued developments of third-party assisted reproductive medical practices has allowed many prospective parents, regardless of their marital status, age, or sexual orientation, to have a new opportunity for genetically or biologically connected children. With these developments come a number of rather complex ethical issues and ongoing discussions regarding assisted reproduction within our society today. These issues include the use of reproductive drugs, gestational services such as surrogacy as well as the rights of those seeking these drugs and services and the responsibilities of the professionals who offer and practice these services.
I would have said that it was a generous and thoughtful act of kindness for a surrogate to be willing to help a couple bring a child into this world. I would have never thought deeply about some of the moral and ethical aspects of surrogacy, until now. I have been married for almost four years, and I believe in the unity of marriage and the idea of becoming one. After reading Cahill’s argument on surrogacy, and reflected on my own moral values, I immediately took a stance to agree with her. I believe that when it comes to a child, the best interest of the child should be a top priority. I am not a mother, but I am very passionate about children, and find their lives to be so precious. Parents should always have the child’s best interest in mind when making choices regarding their child’s life. A surrogate may be doing it as an act of kindness, and that may be her intention. However, I agree that surrogacy brings a dualistic element to the relationship. I know that as a married woman I would never hire a surrogate to bear my child, nor be a surrogate to carry someone else’s child. I want children, but I would never want to be treated as the means to an end, and I would not want my child to be considered a commodity. I strongly agree with Cahill in that a binding moral obligation does come with certain choices, even if we did not choose them in the first
In 1992, a new abortion procedure was introduced to the United States public. It was first performed by Dr. James McMahon and explained by Dr. Martin Haskell (Scully). It was used during the second and third trimesters (around twenty to twenty-four weeks along) and involved partially delivering the fetus so the doctors could remove the baby’s brain with suction (Wagner). The term “D&X”, which stands for “intact dilation and extraction,” was used to refer to this procedure (Hoyt). It was not until a few years later that debates about this procedure came about. In 1995, “Representative Charles Canady (R., Fla) introduced the Partial Birth Abortion Act” (Scully). Since then, the issue has been debated extensively. There have been questions about the accuracy of some facts that have been presented. This extremely political issue has more than just the usual two sides: Democratic and Republican. There are people against it who would like it banned completely, while others are against it but do not think it should be banned. Then, there are some who are in favor of it because they see nothing wrong with it, while still others are in favor of it just because they think that doing away with it would take away women’s rights. Those opinions and any others can mainly boil down to proponents and opponents of partial-birth abortion. In many articles over the years, both proponents and opponents have each given their logical appeals, emotional appeals, and ethical appeals while trying to destroy the other side of the issue.
Keran， C L（1997）. Surrogacy A Last Resort Alternative for Infertile Women or a Commodification of women’s bodies and children?, Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal Vol.12, pp118
Commercial surrogacy commodifies children because by paying the surrogate mother to give up her child, they treat the child as an object of exchange or commodity that can be bought and sold. As any business transaction, the parents give money for the exchange of an object, the child. The parents get their desired child and the mother gets the money, but what about what thee child think about this event? The parents and surrogate mother’s action were done with self-interest. It could be argued that they wanted the best for the child. However, the first priority in the intentional procreation of the child was not the welfare of the child but rather to give it up to the parents in exchange of money. Additionally, women’s labor is commodified because the surrogate mother treats her parental rights as it was a property right not as a trust. In other words, the decisions taken concerning the child are not done primarily for the benefit of the child. The act of the mother relenting her parental rights is done for a monetary price. She disposes of her parental rights, which are to be managed for the welfare of the owner, as if they were property right, which are to be handled for personal
Gestational surrogacy, especially when it involves commercial surrogates, challenges the status quo in the ethical theory of reproduction, because with this technology the process of producing a child can no longer remain a private matter. Now a public contract exists between two parties, the couple and the surrogate ...
Test tube babies have long been stigmatized by society as the unnatural results of scientific dabbling. The words `test tube baby' have been used by school children as an insult, and many adults have seen an artificial means of giving birth as something perhaps only necessary for a lesbian woman, or a luxury item only available to the elite few. The reality is that assisted reproductive technologies (ART) have been helping infertile couples have children since 1978.1 The methods of in vitro fertilization, it's variants, and the other ART procedures are ways for persons that would otherwise have no hope of conception to conceive and, in a rapidly growing percentage of cases, give birth to healthy babies. As the technology has developed, the quality and range of assistance has developed as well. At present, the means of assisted reproduction and the capabilities of these procedures has grown at a somewhat dizzying pace. However, thought to the repercussions of the applications of ART are being disregarded to some extent while the public's knowledge and the understanding of embryologists and geneticists surges forward. It is possible given consideration to things such as the morality of these techniques, the unexplored alternative uses of these procedures, and the potential impact they posses that further development is unnecessary and possibly dangerous.
Arguments against commercial surrogacy typically revolve around the idea that surrogacy is a form of child-selling. Critics believe that commercial surrogacy violates both women’s and children’s rights. In addition, by making surrogacy contracts legally enforceable, courts will follow the contract rather than choose what is best for the child. However, in her article “Surrogate Mothering: Exploring Empowerment” Laura Pudry is not convinced by these arguments.
A surrogacy is the carrying of a pregnancy for intended parents. There are two kinds of surrogacy: “Gestational”, in which the egg and sperm belong to the intended parents and is carried by the surrogate, and “traditional”, where the surrogate is inseminated with the intended father’s sperm. Regardless of the method, I believe that surrogacy cannot be morally justified. Surrogacy literally means “substitute”, or “replacement”. A surrogate is a replacement for a mother for that 9-month period of pregnancy, and therefore is reducing the role of the surrogate mother to an oversimplified and dehumanizing labor. The pregnancy process for the gestational mother can be very physically and mentally demanding, and is unique because after birthing the
Surrogacy is becoming extremely popular as a way for people to build their families and women to have a source of income. Many people have various reasons for their opposition to it whether it be by comparing it to prostitution or disagreeing with how military wives take advantage of the Tricare insurance. Lorraine Ali states in her article “The Curious Lives of Surrogates” that one of the more popular reasons to oppose surrogacy is that it contradicts, “what we’ve always thought of as an unbreakable bond between mother and child.” However, a woman’s inability to conceive her own children does not determine the absence of a mother to child bond.
Detractor will state that surrogacy should be illegal because it is immoral, cost prohibitive for most, and even liken it to the sale of a child. Each of these objections to surrogacy are without merit once analyzed closely. There is nothing immoral about surrogacy. Surrogacy is even mentioned in the Bible. Abraham’s wife Sarah is infertile, and offers her slave to Abraham in order to give him a son. Moreover, morality should not be legislated. Bad things have happened throughout history when governments try to legislate morality. The Salem Witch Trials are a prime example of the travesties that can occur when one’s morals are pushed on another. The Crusades are another example of what happens when one’s beliefs are forced upon another. America is a great county that allows people to believe whatever they want to believe. If one does not believe in surrogacy, then he/she does not have to, but he/she should not prohibit other from the pursuit of happiness. Some detractors point out the fact that surrogacy is expensive and therefore should be illegal because it is not attainable for everyone. IVF costs about $12,000 per round in order to cover the medication, surgery, creating and transfer of the embryo, and the pregnancy test afterward(Kuczynski, 2008). This is extremely expensive for most families in America, but it is still a viable option for infertile couples. The entire argument that surrogacy should be illegal because it costs too much is like expecting Ferrari to close its doors because their cars are too expensive. Men and women are created equal, but not all men and women will live equal lives. There will always be the haves and the have nots. There is another group of people that like surrogacy to the sale of children. This argument does not hold water either. Surrogate mothers allow their bodies to be used to perform a function that is not available to an