or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Would you ever consider being a surrogate?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Would you ever consider being a surrogate? - Page 7

post #121 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by BelgianSheepDog View Post
No one can be worthy of receiving something that should never be given away. That's the point. Just like no one is a worthy candidate to own a slave.
most surrogates are NOT biologically related to the baby.
How can you say "No one can be worthy of receiving something that should never be given away. "
When it was never the surrogate's baby to begin with???
post #122 of 178
Quote:
Thinking more about it, my issues with surrogacy are more the rich renting out the wombs of the poor.

I only wish to reply to this above ^

You are so right, my family income of $100,000 pales in comparision to my super rich Intended Parents. Please.:

Most surrogates are not POOR. And most Intended Parents are not rich.
post #123 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadfamily6now View Post
most surrogates are NOT biologically related to the baby.
How can you say "No one can be worthy of receiving something that should never be given away. "
When it was never the surrogate's baby to begin with???
Actually, in most states, it IS the surrogate's baby. The surrogate gets to decide, when the baby is born, whether or not she will give the baby up. She can always choose to keep the baby as hers forever.

That is why I said that I know I would be "one of those" women (the ones we read about in newspapers from time to time) who opt to keep the baby after all. Because I know I would bond with it during the pregnancy and it would tear me apart to give someone away who was mine.
post #124 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
Actually, in most states, it IS the surrogate's baby. The surrogate gets to decide, when the baby is born, whether or not she will give the baby up. She can always choose to keep the baby as hers forever.

That is why I said that I know I would be "one of those" women (the ones we read about in newspapers from time to time) who opt to keep the baby after all. Because I know I would bond with it during the pregnancy and it would tear me apart to give someone away who was mine.

Actually, in most states you can get a pre-birth order which lists the Intended Parents as parents way before birth. This document allows the Intended Parents (generally also the Bio Parents) to be listed on the birth certificate at birth.

I think you are wise for knowing how you would feel and NOT becoming a surrogate. There are some that can and some that can't.
post #125 of 178
It's always something I wanted to do eventually but with my multiple miscarriages and difficult pregnancies I would not be a suitable surrogate.
post #126 of 178
So many of these conversations can be broken down to the same "Gray Area" final resting place: What is right for one is not nec. right for another. Ethics and "moral compass" is a slippery slope, slippery enough for individuals to climb on their own, and disasterous when applied generally to the population as a whole. There are circumstances that dictate one's moral compass, and circumstances that might incite a major paradigm shift, given the right pressures. I am thankful (and suggest that other folks reflect on their thankfulness) that my circumstances have not been such that I have to take another look at my moral compass, that I have the luxury of debating this topic at all, as a woman of mixed descent in an affluent and "free" society.

Even if one's code of ethics (right now) does not lend itself to surrogacy, that doesn't make that code of ethics any kind of Standard for All.

I don't think I'd be able to be a surrogate for a myriad reasons, both physical and emotional, but if the circumstances arranged themselves so, I know that my paradigm would easily shift, and I'd do it in a heart beat... for a loved one in desperation, for instance... But what I would do has no place in statements about what anyone else should do.
post #127 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadfamily6now View Post
Actually, in most states you can get a pre-birth order which lists the Intended Parents as parents way before birth. This document allows the Intended Parents (generally also the Bio Parents) to be listed on the birth certificate at birth.

I think you are wise for knowing how you would feel and NOT becoming a surrogate. There are some that can and some that can't.

Right, but my understanding, based on reading about what is actually happening as well as conversations with someone who helps manage and is a technician in a big (famous even) fertility clinic who will NOT deal with surrogates because of the legal issues involved, is that all the signed papers in the world don't matter and don't hold up in court. I'd be interested to learn more about if these documents actually help a bio family win a case against a surrogate or not in other states.
post #128 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
Right, but my understanding, based on reading about what is actually happening as well as conversations with someone who helps manage and is a technician in a big (famous even) fertility clinic who will NOT deal with surrogates because of the legal issues involved, is that all the signed papers in the world don't matter and don't hold up in court. I'd be interested to learn more about if these documents actually help a bio family win a case against a surrogate or not in other states.
You have valid points. Unfortunately I dont have access to the information you are looking for.
I do know that some states do have actual laws on the books regarding surrogacy specifically, such as Californina and Arkansas. Those 2 states I mentioned DO uphold the contract and pre-birth order and the bioparents (or Intended Parents, bio or not) do have legal standing in court IF something were to happen.

There are some states where Surrogacy of any kind is Illegal.


I know that the bad surrogacy stories get spread around a LOT more then the good ones do. That is why people are leary of surrogacy. I have been in the surrogacy world now for 8 years and Personally, I have only known of 4 surrogacies that have ended badly and have gone to court and that is out of 300+ births a year.
post #129 of 178
I would in a heartbeat in the right situation. my sis and bil are ttc right now...they've been trying for 2 years and are being referred to an RE. if they are unable to get pregnant within their timezone (I have no idea nor do they what htat might be) then I am going to carry their baby. I have no problems with that. I will have no problems giving the baby to them when its born.

hopefully though she will be able to conceive and can give birth to her own baby.
post #130 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by roadfamily6now View Post
most surrogates are NOT biologically related to the baby.
How can you say "No one can be worthy of receiving something that should never be given away. "
When it was never the surrogate's baby to begin with???
The baby isn't the only thing being given away in a surrogacy.
post #131 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
Actually, in most states, it IS the surrogate's baby. The surrogate gets to decide, when the baby is born, whether or not she will give the baby up. She can always choose to keep the baby as hers forever.
Even if the baby is not biologically hers? Even so, couldn't the the bio father petition the court for custody whether or not the baby is biologically his wife's or the surrogates? I carried my dd and she is biologically my child. However, I don't even think I am legally entiled to say I could "keep" her forever as mine. My dh, her biological father, could petition the court for custody, and most likely win at least partial custody, if we split. Why would it be any different in a case with a surrogate? Are they protected in some states by special laws in which they are guaranteed full custody?
post #132 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
Even if the baby is not biologically hers? Even so, couldn't the the bio father petition the court for custody whether or not the baby is biologically his wife's or the surrogates? I carried my dd and she is biologically my child. However, I don't even think I am legally entiled to say I could "keep" her forever as mine. My dh, her biological father, could petition the court for custody, and most likely win at least partial custody, if we split. Why would it be any different in a case with a surrogate? Are they protected in some states by special laws in which they are guaranteed full custody?
No, the issue is that in many circumstances, the birth mother IS the legal mother of the child. That's what is hard. It's not about an inviolable contract, just that you'd have to go through the same hoops to take the child away from its birth mother that you would to take ANY child away from its bio/birth mother. The state doesn't recognize that the child belongs to ANYONE else but the birth mother. It doesn't confer extra rights or anything, but as everyone knows full well, courts like to keep babies with their mothers most of the time, especially without any cause, and so visitation rights might be the best you could get out of it.
post #133 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
No, the issue is that in many circumstances, the birth mother IS the legal mother of the child. That's what is hard. It's not about an inviolable contract, just that you'd have to go through the same hoops to take the child away from its birth mother that you would to take ANY child away from its bio/birth mother. The state doesn't recognize that the child belongs to ANYONE else but the birth mother. It doesn't confer extra rights or anything, but as everyone knows full well, courts like to keep babies with their mothers most of the time, especially without any cause, and so visitation rights might be the best you could get out of it.
I can see your point if a case involved a surrogate who was also the genetic mother. However, I just don't think it would be that easy for a gestational surrogate to keep the baby, particularly if the intened mother was also the bio mother (in other words, no third party egg donor was used). Just because the state doesn't recognize any other woman other than the woman who gave birth as the mother doesn't mean that the state believes gestation supersedes genetics, but more likely that the state simply does not have legislation regarding surrogacy. Also, there could be case law, and if not, a judge still has the ability to set a precident. Does anyone know if there has ever been a case where a gestational surrogate was allowed by the courts to keep the baby rather than genetic parents? I did a google search, but I am not very good at that.
post #134 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
I can see your point if a case involved a surrogate who was also the genetic mother. However, I just don't think it would be that easy for a gestational surrogate to keep the baby, particularly if the intened mother was also the bio mother (in other words, no third party egg donor was used). Just because the state doesn't recognize any other woman other than the woman who gave birth as the mother doesn't mean that the state believes gestation supersedes genetics, but more likely that the state simply does not have legislation regarding surrogacy. Also, there could be case law, and if not, a judge still has the ability to set a precident. Does anyone know if there has ever been a case where a gestational surrogate was allowed by the courts to keep the baby rather than genetic parents? I did a google search, but I am not very good at that.
Yes, there have absolutely been cases... Baby M to start with. As others have pointed out, they have been highly publicized and are not the norm. However, it DOES happen. And the gestational surrgogate gets to keep the baby, end of story. It happened in my former homestate, where that fertility clinic is I referenced earlier. It made a huge splash, but in the end, the infertile couple lost their baby to the surrogate, though I think they were granted visitation rights.

What my point was, is that if I were a surrogate, I could see myself being one of those women who loses it at the end of the pregnancy and can't handle giving the baby up. I get attached very early on in pregnancy, and it would kill me to hand the baby over even if it wasn't genetically mine.

A lot of fertility clinics don't deal with surrogates because of all the legal issues involved, ranging from ethical issues (the "renting uteruses" and "exploiting the poor" and "we don't buy and sell humans" aspects already discussed in this thread) as well as the issue of not having a sure thing... that the surrogate could change her mind at the last minute and your client doesn't get her baby.

And yes, when you add to that having a baby that is not fully genetically of the intended/adoptive parents, it is even more complicated. Women whose eggs are bad can get a donor egg and their husband's sperm, or the surrogate's egg and their husband's sperm, or the surrogate's egg and donor sperm, or donor egg AND donor sperm, and then the idea is that the infertile couple will still get the baby in the end. But the surrogate decides not to give the baby up after all. What I was saying is I can completely see myself not wanting to do that. And even more so if this fairly common scenario were the case.
post #135 of 178
what disturbs me about the ethical conversation about surrogates really comes down to the concept of "property" - who "owns" the child. If the child is my biological dna and birthed from my body, then it is presumed the child is "mine" - but if I "rent" my womb to gestate someone else's dna, etc etc. And if I "giv e" away that child, it no longer belongs to me.

The entire conversation is about ownership of a child, akin to ownership of a piece of property. But this is very culturally specific.

What I find fascinating is that in West Africa, there is a concept of "fostering" - if a woman is unable to have a child, she is "given" responsibility for a child by a family member - not in the sense of the child belongs to her, but that she is now responsible for raising that child, to have the experience of motherhood. The child is, and will always be, part of its birth family. But it is as well part of the foster family too.

There is a lifelong connection now between the families - forged by the child - and each family is supposed to gain from the experience.

Yes, it is usually poorer members of families who will foster their children with wealthier members of the family - the idea is that children are always a welcome addition for a family (a resource, in a Marxist perspective) - and one that can be shared.

For what it is worth, I personally could only be a surrogate in a situation where I would be a full member of the child's life - not in the role of mother, per se, but definitely aunt or other loving relative. I would worry too much otherwise. So, similarly to others, for a sibling or very close friend, yes, I would.

Siobhan
post #136 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
Yes, there have absolutely been cases... Baby M to start with.
Wasn't Baby M the surrogate's biological child?
post #137 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
Wasn't Baby M the surrogate's biological child?
I just googled it, so I'll answer my own question in case anyone else wants to know.

Baby M was the surrogate's biological daughter. Also, the biological father and his wife were awarded custody. The surrogate's parental rights were terminated and she was only awarded visitation.
post #138 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by riverscout View Post
I just googled it, so I'll answer my own question in case anyone else wants to know.

Baby M was the surrogate's biological daughter. Also, the biological father and his wife were awarded custody. The surrogate's parental rights were terminated and she was only awarded visitation.
oops. In any case, this is hardly something I'd like to have happen - this case was a disaster. And the surrogate got visitation for 18 YEARS!!! A nightmare.

Like I said, in my former homestate, a non-biological surrogate got custody. Period.
post #139 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Periwinkle View Post
oops. In any case, this is hardly something I'd like to have happen - this case was a disaster. And the surrogate got visitation for 18 YEARS!!! A nightmare.

Like I said, in my former homestate, a non-biological surrogate got custody. Period.

I agree it was a disaster. The little girl was almost 2 by the time there was a decision. I can't even imagine what she must have gone through. I remember watching the news and seeing them take her away. It was a real media circus.

Please forgive me if you may have mentioned this, but as far as the case in you former homestate, were *both* of the inteneded parents also the genetic parents? If so, could you give me a little bit more information about the case, like at least the state, so I can try and look it up and read more about it. I would be very interested to see how the judge came to his or her decision and to see if there was/is an appeal. If you don't feel comfortable posting the state, maybe you could pm me. I won't tell anybody.
post #140 of 178
[QUOTE=siobhang;7789120]what disturbs me about the ethical conversation about surrogates really comes down to the concept of "property" - who "owns" the child. If the child is my biological dna and birthed from my body, then it is presumed the child is "mine" - but if I "rent" my womb to gestate someone else's dna, etc etc. And if I "giv e" away that child, it no longer belongs to me.

The entire conversation is about ownership of a child, akin to ownership of a piece of property. But this is very culturally specific.

I find it very disturbing to think of a child as property. I am going to be a surrogate for a wonderfull couple who is local to me. I don't see it at all the way that you put that. I see myself as a caretaker or a babysitter of sorts. Just the same as I would look after someone elses child while they are at work ect I am looking after thier child until he or she is big enough to go home. Even with our own children you don't "own" them so why should it be different with someone elses child? I think it really comes down to how you feel. I did alot of soul searching before I came to my decision to be a surrogate and think if one is doubtful they sohuldn't become a surrogate.JMHO
Krista
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Would you ever consider being a surrogate?