Parenthood is a journey many people choose to undertake in their lives but when outside complications interfere with this desire, it can lead to the exploration of other avenues such as commercial surrogacy. Commercial surrogacy is an issue of human dignity as it attempts to discern how human life is valued and given meaning, questioning how we treat one another and what we are able to offer each other especially when another life is brought into consideration. In this essay, two perspectives will be discussed, Perspective 1: the commodification surrounding surrogacy and Perspective 3: the policy and media representations of surrogacy in society. Only by viewing human dignity as multidimensional in this situation are we able to protect and …show more content…
Anderson (2000) believes that the concept of surrogacy is wrong and a violation of human dignity as it makes a commodity of not only the female body with disregard to the woman's own feelings, but also the child. Anderson's beliefs come from the first category of human dignity, quadrants 1A and 1B: dignity that is inherent because of species membership and our own special human capacities. Our possession of distinctive abilities to be rational, moral, autonomous beings capable of love and deserving of freedom, are forcibly removed from both the children and the surrogate mothers through commercial surrogacy. The child loses their freedom and autonomy, as they are too young to verbalise their opinion or understand the situation. Their best interests are disregarded as they become a possession where the adults' seeking surrogacy make decisions based on their own interests and feelings. The surrogate mother's human dignity is also violated when her autonomy and ability to love that child are denied through these situations. The exchange of parental rights in these economic trades insinuates that a parent's love is not only interchangeable, but also easily discarded (Anderson, 2000). In conventional situations where the couple are able to create their own child without outside means, they are both have a duty and obligation to this child and child has a right to parents (Ekman, 2014). Why then is the connection and love that forms between a woman and the child growing inside of her not only expected to be overlooked but easily discarded and detached in surrogacy
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.
Recent high profile cases, films and books all around the world including the UK, Australia and the United States have brought to the public’s attention a new type of IVF. ‘Embryo Selection’ meaning ‘Embryos are fertilised outside the body and only those with certain genes are selected and implanted in the womb.’ Henceforth meaning that doctors are now able to select specific embryo’s and implant them into the mother of who may have another sick child in order to gain genetic material such as bone marrow which will match the ill-fated child and therefore hopefully be able to save their life. Creating a ‘saviour sibling’. ‘A child conceived through selective in vitro fertilization as a potential source of donor organs or cells for an existing brother or sister with a life-threatening medical condition’ a definition given by Oxford Dictionaries (1.0). Cases of this are happening all around the globe and many are highly documented about. The most famous case could be noted as in the fictional book of ‘My Sisters Keeper’ By Jodi Picoult. I will further discuss this throughout my dissertation and how books and films can affect the view on certain ethical subjects. Furthermore, I am also going to discuss a range of factors such as certain religious beliefs and the physical creation of saviour siblings compared to the creation of designer babies. Strong views are held by many both for and against the creation of saviour siblings.
Our culture has a stringent belief that creating new life if a beautiful process which should be cherished. Most often, the birth process is without complications and the results are a healthy active child. In retrospect, many individuals feel that there are circumstances that make it morally wrong to bring a child into the world. This is most often the case when reproduction results in the existence of another human being with a considerably reduced chance at a quality life. To delve even further into the topic, there are individuals that feel they have been morally wronged by the conception in itself. Wrongful conception is a topic of debate among many who question the ethical principles involved with the sanctity of human life. This paper will analyze the ethical dilemmas of human dignity, compassion, non-malfeasance, and social justice, as well the legal issues associated with wrongful conception.
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
Over the course of the last century, abortion in the Western hemisphere has become a largely controversial topic that affects every human being. In the United States, at current rates, one in three women will have had an abortion by the time they reach the age of 45. The questions surrounding the laws are of moral, social, and medical dilemmas that rely upon the most fundamental principles of ethics and philosophy. At the center of the argument is the not so clear cut lines dictating what life is, or is not, and where a fetus finds itself amongst its meaning. In an effort to answer the question, lawmakers are establishing public policies dictating what a woman may or may not do with regard to her reproductive rights.
The topic of abortion will continue to be a controversial issue, which will always cause an ongoing debate. In this paper, I will refute Mary Anne Warren’s argument on the idea that fetuses don’t have full moral status because they are not classified as people, which she claims makes abortion morally permissible. Mary-Anne Warren states in her article “On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion” that there are two senses of “Human” one in moral sense, which is a human who is a complete member of the community, and one in a genetic sense, which she describes as a human that is merely just a member of the biological species. Warren argues that the fetus is only human in the genetic sense. She goes on to elaborate on the idea that
The pro-life feminist believes that the autonomy of one’s body does not generalize if a fetus is present. In the case study involving Bob and Linda Thompson, a married couple with two children who end up pregnant after the failure of an IUD, the pro-life husband is thrilled by the news and informs the children, whereas the wife wants an immediate abortion of the four-month-old fetus in order to continue her career. Callahan would agree with the husband and believe Linda should continue the pregnancy as the right to control her body does not give her the right to control the body of her child. This fetus is immature and powerless, and though it is not yet a person, it is developing into one. Callahan believes that “women can never achieve the fulfillment of feminist goals in a society permissive toward abortion,” (Callahan 161) and disagrees with the views of philosophers Harrison and Petchesky. Furthermore, though Linda believes that it is her body and she has control over what she does with it, Callahan disagrees as another body will result from this 266-day pregnancy, and the process is genetically ordered. The abortion of the fetus is not like an organ donation as the development of the fetus is a continuing process, and Callahan finds it hard to differentiate the point after conception where the immature life
The addition of a child into a family’s home is a happy occasion. Unfortunately, some families are unable to have a child due to unforeseen problems, and they must pursue other means than natural pregnancy. Some couples adopt and other couples follow a different path; they utilize in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood. The process is complicated, unreliable, but ultimately can give the parents the gift of a child they otherwise could not have had. At the same time, as the process becomes more and more advanced and scientists are able to predict the outcome of the technique, the choice of what child is born is placed in the hands of the parents. Instead of waiting to see if the child had the mother’s eyes, the father’s hair or Grandma’s heart problem, the parents and doctors can select the best eggs and the best sperm to create the perfect child. Many see the rise of in vitro fertilization as the second coming of the Eugenics movement of the 19th and early 20th century. A process that is able to bring joy to so many parents is also seen as deciding who is able to reproduce and what child is worthy of birthing.
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 ...
...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.
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
Researches have discussed that due to the potential of issues akin to those that happen in the United States in the 1980’s with a surrogate mother, whom decided that she wanted to keep the child that was genetically related to her though she had an agreement with a family to give the child to. Situations like this is why there are states that have laws prohibiting surrogacy. There are state laws that state that the only way that a woman can choose to be a surrogate is if she is not compensated. These states have allowed for the use of surrogates under strict/restrictive conditions. The requirements include: the potential parents must be legally married, the mother to be must be unable to physically have her own child (infertile), one of the potential parents has to be genetically related to the child and the potential surrogate must have already had a child (Hinson & McBrien,