Surrogate Motherhood Analysis

985 Words2 Pages

The Morality of Surrogate Motherhood In their article “Cutting Motherhood in Two: Some Suspicions Concerning Surrogacy”, Hilde Lindemann Nelson and James Lindemann Nelson argue against the idea of commercial surrogacy. There main argument revolves around the rights that biological parents owe to the children they bring into the world. This argument can be formulated as follows: 1) Bringing a child into the world makes a child vulnerable to harm, 2) Both of a child’s biological parents have duties and obligations to defend the child from harm, 3) Only biological parents can fulfill the duties to defend the child from harm and it is immoral for a parents not to do so, 4) Surrogate mothers voluntarily choose to give up their parental rights and …show more content…

Any competent individual who cares for a child is capable of defending the child from harm. The Nelsons’ argument proposes that a natural, biological parent is more important and influential in the life of a child than any other caretaker. This argument would purport that a biological parent’s care is always in the best interest of the child. This is not the case, some biological parents are unfit to care for a child and their care would actually be worse for the child’s well-being. For example, biological parents who take drugs may be worse for the child than adoptive parents. The environment occupied by these biological parents actually introduces the child to more possibilities for harm. The Nelsons’ argument claims that the duties can only be fulfilled by the biological parents. They argue that it is immoral to not fulfill those duties, which by consequence means it is immoral for biological parents to transfer their duties to another caregiver. However, it is arguable that another caregiver is able to fulfill protection duties to the child better than the biological parents would be able to, therefore premise 3 is …show more content…

The surrogate mother has not abandoned the child and has not left the child without protection. The new caregiver, the adoptive mother, who assumes the duties, is capable of protecting the child. The conclusion of the Nelsons’ argument rests on the idea that surrogate motherhood contracts are immoral because the biological mother is not able fulfill the duties owed to the child and that not fulfilling these duties is immoral. This argument focuses on protecting the child’s interests and claims that only the biological parents are able to do so. However, this argument is unsound because the biological parents are not the only ones capable of protecting the child. The surrogate mother has passed along her duties to another individual who is able to care for the child just as well. The obligation to the child is being fulfilled, just not by the biological mother. Accepting this argument would require one to believe that nature is more important than nurture. One would have to believe that only the biological parents of the child can provide protection and safety for him or

Open Document