Essay On Surrogate Mother Contract

To answer this question, we must first ask what is a contract? Well according to a law handbook a contact is a legally binding or valid agreement between two parties. But then what does legally biding mean. A law dictionary states “lawful action, such as an agreement consciously agreed to by two or more entities, establishing lawful accountability. An illegal action, such as forcing, tricking, or coercing a person into an agreement, is not legally binding.” If this is case then the famous supreme court case regarding Surrogate mother contract, the contract was illegal. But say the contract was legal does it make it appropriate. Or what if the contract was moral but not legal? If both parties benefit is it appropriate? Or what if only one party

The introduction of money to this contract is the primary reason this contract is not moral. If this is the case isn’t this a form of slavery or at the very least human trafficking? You’re essentially selling your child and letting another person dictate the outcome of this child’s life. If slavery contracts are illegal then why aren’t surrogate contracts illegal. For example say one day a debt collector comes and says you need to pay off your debt or your property will be repossessed. So you make a contract to become a surrogate mother. The contract fixes all the problems stated previously and is 100% legal. In return you get the money you need to pay off your debt and a couple gets to have a child. At this point this isn’t an adoption anymore it’s a sale of a human being. Suppose in the worst case scenario a mother doesn’t care for children at all and decides to become a surrogate mother simply for monetary gain. The mother is using her child as a means to an end. If this was the case the percent of surrogate mothers would increase. In this scenario both parties would benefit but the contract would be immoral and inappropriate for society. Money would exploit the poor and the highest bidder would be able to purchase a child. In Mrs. Whiteheads case she didn’t full understand the consequences of her actions. Money at the time was more compelling. This leads to another moral issue, which is the best interest of the child. The agency in this surrogate mother case was profit motivated. They didn’t evaluate the Sterns to see if they were suitable parents. What if they were abusive or irresponsible, it wouldn’t have matter to the agency as long as they got paid. In addition to that what becomes of the child if they grew up and found out they were sold? It could have detrimental effects on the child. The mother as well could be affect later in her life once she realizes what she has done. Everything immoral about