Ethical Issue:
Should surrogate mothers get paid?
Facts:
Surrogacy is a process in which another woman carries and gives birth to a baby for someone else. The surrogate mother usually does the process for a relative or friend, sometimes as an act of kindness for a random couple, but never for the gain of affluence. Financial gain is an illegal reason for becoming a surrogate mother in some areas, and is also highly looked down upon. Although, compensation can range from $39,450-$52,450 , the process should only be done with the morals of kindness and selflessness.
Stakeholders/Values:
Stakeholders of surrogacy are the intended parents and the surrogate mother. The values of surrogacy would be selflessness, the desire to help others, family, and generosity. An applicant must have these values in order to be eligible to be a surrogate mother,
…show more content…
One abuse of surrogate compensation is it being motivation. It would be morally wrong for the compensation to cause you to want to be a surrogate mother. Another abuse of surrogate compensation is blackmailing by the genetic mother. For example, the genetic mother could want the surrogate mother to do certain things during pregnancy. If the surrogate mother says no, the genetic mother could use the compensation against the surrogate mother and say they won’t receive compensation if their orders aren’t followed.
Agree Or Disagree:
I agree that surrogate mothers should receive compensation for surrogacy. One reason is because it covers all of the appointment and clinic fees, plus some of the costs for food, because they will have to eat greater portions to keep her and the baby healthy. Another reason I believe surrogate mothers should be paid for surrogacy is because it is a lot of emotional and physical stress on the surrogate mother over the course of the nine month
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.
“Time to Ban Surrogate Motherhood,” written by Lynda Hurst and “Surrogate Motherhood: Why it Should Be Permitted,” written by Allan C. Hutchinson, are persuasive texts where the authors’ attempts to influence the audience to agree with their side of the argument on surrogate motherhood. According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, surrogate motherhood is defined as, “a woman who bears a child for another person, often for pay, either through artificial insemination or by carrying until birth another woman's surgically implanted fertilized egg.” Since the persuasive works are published in different newspapers, one being The Toronto Star and the other being The Globe and Mail, the works are written for different target audiences. Comparing the articles of Lynda Hurst and Allan C. Hutchinson, numerous differences between the elements of tone and the types of structure define the target audience.
A surrogacy is the carrying of a pregnancy for intended parents. There are two kinds of surrogacy: “Gestational”, in which the egg and sperm belong to the intended parents and is carried by the surrogate, and “traditional”, where the surrogate is inseminated with the intended father’s sperm. Regardless of the method, I believe that surrogacy cannot be morally justified. Surrogacy literally means “substitute”, or “replacement”. A surrogate is a replacement for a mother for that 9-month period of pregnancy, and therefore is reducing the role of the surrogate mother to an oversimplified and dehumanizing labor. The pregnancy process for the gestational mother can be very physically and mentally demanding, and is unique because after birthing the
I would have said that it was a generous and thoughtful act of kindness for a surrogate to be willing to help a couple bring a child into this world. I would have never thought deeply about some of the moral and ethical aspects of surrogacy, until now. I have been married for almost four years, and I believe in the unity of marriage and the idea of becoming one. After reading Cahill’s argument on surrogacy, and reflected on my own moral values, I immediately took a stance to agree with her. I believe that when it comes to a child, the best interest of the child should be a top priority. I am not a mother, but I am very passionate about children, and find their lives to be so precious. Parents should always have the child’s best interest in mind when making choices regarding their child’s life. A surrogate may be doing it as an act of kindness, and that may be her intention. However, I agree that surrogacy brings a dualistic element to the relationship. I know that as a married woman I would never hire a surrogate to bear my child, nor be a surrogate to carry someone else’s child. I want children, but I would never want to be treated as the means to an end, and I would not want my child to be considered a commodity. I strongly agree with Cahill in that a binding moral obligation does come with certain choices, even if we did not choose them in the first
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.
In this paper, I argue that if the debate about the morality of surrogacy is couched in terms of respect due to other human beings and the paramount importance of their intimate relationships with one another, then it may be shown that most ordinary instances of surrogacy are morally wrong. Human flourishing cannot be separated from one’s relationships with others and any circumstance which is destructive of such relationships must be considered immoral. The surrogate, unless she is treated as an object or merely as a means to an end, is intimately involved in the relationships between the child and its putative parents and important relationships become ambiguous and so harmed. Furthermore, if this view if rejected, then the feminist argument that surrogacy always involves the exploitation of the surrogate renders it immoral.
Many women who carry unexpected or unwanted children are left to decide between keeping the child, adoption, abortion and maybe foster care. Most of the time the decision is just between adoption and abortion. In that case, the mother is losing the child either way. Most of the time choosing adoption or foster care would be a better choice than abortion because the pregnancy would end by giving life instead of death. Adoption and foster care are an opportunity for people who wish to be parents, but are not able to have a child of their own to finally become parents or people who have children of their own, but want to add-on to their family.
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.
Gestational surrogacy, especially when it involves commercial surrogates, challenges the status quo in the ethical theory of reproduction, because with this technology the process of producing a child can no longer remain a private matter. Now a public contract exists between two parties, the couple and the surrogate ...
Commercial surrogacy respects the feminist theory as it allows women to be heard and considers their feelings and relationships. Commercial surrogacy overcomes oppression by returning power to surrogates, defeating the patriarchal society and providing autonomy. Commercial surrogacy also tackles the issue of potentially exploiting women by protecting surrogates and, addressing the risks of surrogacy. There are many ethical issues surrounding women and the feminist theory can be a powerful tool in determining moral
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.
Commercial surrogacy commodifies children because by paying the surrogate mother to give up her child, they treat the child as an object of exchange or commodity that can be bought and sold. As any business transaction, the parents give money for the exchange of an object, the child. The parents get their desired child and the mother gets the money, but what about what thee child think about this event? The parents and surrogate mother’s action were done with self-interest. It could be argued that they wanted the best for the child. However, the first priority in the intentional procreation of the child was not the welfare of the child but rather to give it up to the parents in exchange of money. Additionally, women’s labor is commodified because the surrogate mother treats her parental rights as it was a property right not as a trust. In other words, the decisions taken concerning the child are not done primarily for the benefit of the child. The act of the mother relenting her parental rights is done for a monetary price. She disposes of her parental rights, which are to be managed for the welfare of the owner, as if they were property right, which are to be handled for personal
Most young people envision their future in the realm of getting married and creating a family. One of the most devastating things that can happen to a young couple is to be told they cannot have children. There are several options the couple can pursue, and one of those options available is surrogacy. Society today is torn on whether or not surrogacy should be legal in today’s world. Surrogacy is very controversial for many people around the world, and opinions are strong on the subject. Surrogacy is defined as the utilization of a third party female in order for a infertile family to create a biological child for their family. Legalized surrogacy is important to many couples as an option of creating the family they have always dreamed
I know it?s not easy for someone to get pregnant against her will, but the unborn child has also the right to live. If the mother does not want to keep her baby, she can give it for adoption. There are couples that have been trying to have a baby with no luck and always consider adopting a child and giving them a better life.
In addition to the above, even if the woman in this case a teenager may not be financially stable to support the child, she has other safe options such as giving up the baby for adoption temporarily or permanently to anonymous parents as such these children would not be underprivileged and could potential misfits in the. After all, how would giving your child a chance at a life you may be unable to give them make you a bad person?