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
Melanson, Glen. “How the Contractualist Account of Preconception Negligence Undermines Prenatal Reproductive Autonomy.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 38.4 (Aug. 2013): 420-425. Health Reference Center Academic. Web. 09 Feb. 2014.
Thomson starts off her paper by explaining the general premises that a fetus is a person at conception and all persons have the right to life. One of the main premises that Thomson focuses on is the idea that a fetus’ right to life is greater than the mother’s use of her body. Although she believes these premises are arguable, she allows the premises to further her explanation of why abortion could be morally permissible. People would find it more understanding and more willing to help someone who is a relative.
New means of reproducing children have the tendency to attract strong opposition, and this certainly true of surrogate mothering. A surrogate mother is woman who takes on the responsibility of pregnancy for another woman. The surrogate mother is, then, inseminated using a man’s sperm. At the end of the pregnancy, the surrogate mother gives the infant to the woman who requested her services. Some claim this practice is immoral.
Many Australians are turning to surrogacy as their last resort to have a child today. It is a process that has become more recognised popularly used over the years. Surrogacy is an arrangement for a woman to carry and deliver a child for another couple or individual. When the child is born, the birth mother permanently gives up the child to the intended parents. There are many legal issues surrounding surrogacy. Laws regarding this controversial process differ across Australia, and have changed dramatically overtime in Queensland. In this seminar, I will be analysing the issues involved with surrogacy, as well as evaluating and critiquing the new legislation that has been implemented in Queensland, that sets out the laws of surrogacy in Queensland.
In her essay, “A Defense of Abortion,” Judith Jarvis Thompson outlines the most common arguments that people defend, and explains her views regarding each of these. She shares numerous examples and situations that she believes will support her views. One of her most prominent arguments is that of whether or not a fetus has moral standing as a “person.” She highlights the so called “battle” between an innocent life, the fetus, and the bodily rights of the mother. Within this argument, Judith outlines for us several situations which can provide people with a different outlook regarding abortion. Throughout Judith’s essay, she does not truly give a clear stance, but rather allows her readers to choose for themselves.
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.
Moral issues are so complex that the guidance of a theory can be ambiguous. This is the case for commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is when the woman who is carrying the baby is paid a large sum of money for the pregnancy. (Worldwide Surrogacy, 2017). Feminists have argued whether commercial surrogacy is ethical. Exploring commercial surrogacy can help find clarity to this issue. Feminist theory gives importance to emotions and relationships when deciding on ethical deliberations (Collier & Haliburton, 2015). It realizes that other ethical theories favour men but, women are different from
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.
...e open to all women at any point of pregnancy, and that the woman reserves the right as a fully conscious member of the moral community to choose to carry the child or not. She argues that fetuses are not persons or members of the moral community because they don’t fulfill the five qualities of personhood she has fashioned. Warren’s arguments are valid, mostly sound, and cover just about all aspects of the overall topic. However much she was inconsistent on the topic of infanticide, her overall writing was well done and consistent. Warren rejects emotional appeal in a very Vulcan like manner; devout to reason and logic and in doing so has created a well-written paper based solely on this rational mindset.
This essay examines and critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s, A Defense of Abortion (1971). Thomson sets out to show that the foetus does not have a right to the mother’s body and that it would not be unjust to perform an abortion when the mother’s life is not threatened. For the sake of the argument, Thomson adopts the conservative view that the foetus is a person from the moment of conception. The conservative argument asserts that every person has a right to life. The foetus has a right to life.
A woman enters into a contract that consists on her getting pregnant with a strangers sperms, and after the baby is born, to give up the baby. The stranger is going to pay the medical expenses and $10,000 in exchange of claiming all the parental rights when the baby is born. The stranger is a good person who has not been able to have children on his own. Why does the morality of the action may seem doubtful? Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson wrote an essay called “is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” to explain in detail the reasons of commercial surrogacy being morally wrong. In her paper, Anderson explains that commercial surrogacy treats children and parental rights as objects that could be bought and sold for personal convenience. According to
In 2000 the United Nations Populations Fund (UNFPA) defined reproductive rights as "the basic rights of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children; to have the information and means to do so; and to have the right to make decisions concerning reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion or violence."[1] Traditionally society defines reproductive rights in the context of one's being able to make decisions about his or her own reproduction; other individuals, unrelated to that person, were not considered as being involved in the decision. With the onset of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in 1978, reproductive processes have become more complicated. For example, in gestational surrogacy a surrogate mother, not genetically related to the embryo, is brought into the process of reproduction. This technique allows infertile couples to carry a child or children in the womb of a carrier, rather than in the womb of the biological mother.[2] As a result of this ethically controversial technology, society must modify its reproductive rights. In vitro fertilization (IVF) alone will not solve people's reproductive problems and protect everybody's rights. Society, therefore, must distinguish whose rights-the rights of biological parents or those of the surrogate mothers-should be protected.
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.
The ethics of abortion is a topic that establishes arguments that attempt to argue if abortion is morally justified or not. Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson wrote a pro- choice piece called “A Defense of Abortion.” In this paper, she presents various arguments that attempt to defend abortion by relating it to the woman carrying the fetus and her right in controlling her body. On the other side of the spectrum, philosopher Don Marquis wrote a pro- life paper called “Why Abortion Is Immoral.” Ultimately, Marquis argues that abortion is immoral with rare exceptions because it is resulting in the deprivation of the fetus’s valuable future. He supports his paper by creating the future-like-ours argument that compares the future of a fetus to 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.