|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:45 am
Ok, I would like to know what many of your opinions on surrogacy are.
What is surrogacy you ask? Well, it is simply the usage of repro-genetic technologies to allow a couple who are unable to have a child the "normal" way have one. There are two types of surrogacy, Gestational and Traditional. Gestational surrogacy is when the surrogate mother (the mother who will become pregnant) has no genetic attachment to the baby she is holding. Meaning that there was either an egg donor who is not the intended mother, or it was the intended mother's egg that was used. The egg would have been fertilized either by the intended father, or by a donor, it doesn't matter, as long as it is fertilized.
The other form of surrogacy is called traditional surrogacy. This is when the intended mother has some genetic conection to the baby that will be given up. The egg could be fertilized by a donor or the intended father, it doesn't matter as long as it is fertilized (though, in most cases, it is fertilized by the intended father).
Usually the surrogate mother gets some kind of monetary compensation from the intended parents as well. Also, I would like to mention that only six states have semi-clear laws on surrogacy and when it is legal, and 11 states and D.C. have laws against certain types of surrogacy. (I will post this info upon request.) Also, in almost all surrogacy cases the contracts used to draw up such an agreement are not liable in court.
So, what are your views on this, I have my own, that I am sure I will be posting.
Also, for those of you are for it, how is it any different than selling babies, if it is different? Also, how does this fit in with the U.S. Federal Law against baby selling? Is this any different from adoption? How so? Why are the/are they not the same, what sets them apart? What happens in the case of a surrogate mother who wants to keep the child (for both traditional and gestational)? What if neither person involved wants the child? What happens when the child has no genetic ties to the intended parents, or the surrogate mother; and neither of them want it? What is the definition of a parent?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:01 pm
the only question i can answer there is that your parents are the ones that raise you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:21 pm
Schildkrote the only question i can answer there is that your parents are the ones that raise you. Well, I have another question for you, how do the best interests of the child conflict with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 12:48 pm
my feelings about adoption and surrogacy are summed up in Horton Hatches An Egg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 1:19 pm
chessiejo my feelings about adoption and surrogacy are summed up in Horton Hatches An Egg. Could you please elaborate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:39 pm
I believe that gestational surrogacy is acceptable; as long as all parties write up a contract to seal thew deal. It is not selling babies, it's only using a surrogate mother's womb as a method for a sterile couple to experience the joys of parenting.
Traditional surrogacy is, however, baby selling. As long as the surrogate mother has a genetic attatchment to the child, they are selling them. If, however, the child is put up for adoption and adopted legally by the intended parents, I suppose it can be acceptable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 5:15 pm
Son of Axeman I believe that gestational surrogacy is acceptable; as long as all parties write up a contract to seal thew deal. It is not selling babies, it's only using a surrogate mother's womb as a method for a sterile couple to experience the joys of parenting.
Traditional surrogacy is, however, baby selling. As long as the surrogate mother has a genetic attatchment to the child, they are selling them. If, however, the child is put up for adoption and adopted legally by the intended parents, I suppose it can be acceptable. Now, one ther question of traditional surrogacy, what if the intended father's sperm is used to fertilize the egg, thus giving some genetic tie to the intended parents as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:22 pm
chaoticpuppet Son of Axeman I believe that gestational surrogacy is acceptable; as long as all parties write up a contract to seal thew deal. It is not selling babies, it's only using a surrogate mother's womb as a method for a sterile couple to experience the joys of parenting.
Traditional surrogacy is, however, baby selling. As long as the surrogate mother has a genetic attatchment to the child, they are selling them. If, however, the child is put up for adoption and adopted legally by the intended parents, I suppose it can be acceptable. Now, one ther question of traditional surrogacy, what if the intended father's sperm is used to fertilize the egg, thus giving some genetic tie to the intended parents as well? all the better. but the law can take you from anyone if it's in your "best interest"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2005 4:24 pm
Its not baby selling due to some technicalities. They are paying for the mother to have the baby, not the baby itself. Even adoptions have paperwork and fees you have to pay in order to adopt the children.
However, Traditional surrogacy is a rather sticky line to be playing with because the mother can easily say "Well, it is my child." and take the baby away from the intended couple. It has happened time and time again. The mother decides she wants to keep the baby after holding it and seeing it and takes it to the court and argues that it is genetically hers. The mother normally wins.
Genetic surrogact is still sticky but a few blood tests will disprove her as the mother and in most cases the intended couple will get to keep the baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 10, 2005 12:55 pm
Tigress Dawn Its not baby selling due to some technicalities. They are paying for the mother to have the baby, not the baby itself. Even adoptions have paperwork and fees you have to pay in order to adopt the children. True, however, with surrogacy, if the surrogate mother has health insurance, then the intended family usually puts some type of payment down for the mother to have the child. For example, some intended parents have payed surrogate mothers $10,000-$50,000 or more, to deliver a child. This money goes right to the surrogate mother, and is free of any thing such as insurance payment. (all Insurance companies cover every single pregnancy, they have to by federal law; they cover surrogate births as well). So, how is it different than baby selling? Quote: However, Traditional surrogacy is a rather sticky line to be playing with because the mother can easily say "Well, it is my child." and take the baby away from the intended couple. It has happened time and time again. The mother decides she wants to keep the baby after holding it and seeing it and takes it to the court and argues that it is genetically hers. The mother normally wins. In some cases, the father can argue that the child is genetically his as well, because most traditional surrogate births are fertilized by the intended father's sperm. Also, it's not the fact that the child is genetically the connected to the surrogate mother, it is the fact that surrogacy contracts, in every state (I believe) are unaccountable when taken to court (Baby selling). Quote: Gestational surrogacy is still sticky but a few blood tests will disprove her as the mother and in most cases the intended couple will get to keep the baby. So, then are parents decided by genetics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 1:23 am
chaoticpuppet chessiejo my feelings about adoption and surrogacy are summed up in Horton Hatches An Egg. Could you please elaborate? Summary: Mazie was a lazy bird who did not like sitting on eggs. It was boring and she wanted to take off and see the world, so she asked Horton, the elephant to sit on the egg while she took a vacation. Horton sits through the fall, through the icy cold of winter and into the spring. Then hunters capture the elephant and take him to a circus ... tree, egg and all. Poor Horton, he doesn't like being a captive, but being "faithful 100%", he will not leave the egg. Then, just as the egg is about to hatch, Mazie returns and wants to claim it. But just then the egg hatches, and out comes a little elephant with wings! because of Horton's nurture, the child resembled him more than Maisie, who left in a huff. so in the question of nature versus nurture, i am all for nurture. the synopsis is partly from: http://www.nancypolette.com/LitGuidesText/horton.htmthe Unitarian Church has a reflection exercise based on the book: http://www.hzmre.com/seuss/horton1.htmch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:15 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
