One of the hardest questions in life “Would you donate sperm so that a good friend of yours could be inseminated, to hopefully lead to pregnancy?”, probably right after “Would you die for someone you love?” is a very difficult and intrusive question to ask, let alone answer. Many people have a different perspective on this and don’t see it as a problem, but see it is as a calling to help a friend through a difficult time. Now before I start giving my own opinion and reason to why I could or couldn’t give my friend my sperm I have to say is I have nothing against this nor do I have anything against surrogacy. Technology and science have progressed enough for us to be able to do things like this for people who aren’t fortunate enough bear …show more content…
Even if I was handsomely compensated for my “donation” or deed, I just honestly wouldn’t be able to give someone else my seed, my sperm, to allow half of me to be in this world. Some people may bring up the argument that this is selfish because you have millions and billions of sperm that you could use for you own. The thing is that it is more than a simple act of selfishness. I am more than completely aware of the fact that I am doing an amazing and wonderful thing for a friend. Am I immoral person for not doing this for a friend? My answer to that is this isn’t a question of morality, but I believe this goes even deeper than …show more content…
It isn’t the same innate emotional attachment that you have to that child if he were your own flesh and blood. Just the feeling of the possibility of a child of mine roaming around this world is unsettling. I feel regardless of the legal status of me and the child, it is my biological and social obligation to care and be there for that child. Even with the possibility that I can form a relationship with that child, I couldn’t have the relationship that if he or she were mine and not being given to my friend and her partner. Furthermore, I couldn’t do that to child and confuse him or her and lead them to believe that they have 3 parents. In the reading, The Curious Live of Surrogates by Lorraine Ali and Raina Kelly they state, “What kind of woman would carry a child to term, only to hand him over moments after birth?” In a way, this is what is being asked of me as well. I’m giving my sperm to allow for the birth of my child so that my friend could have our child, but at the same time, can’t be mine because they’ll have their own
“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.
Keran， C L（1997）. Surrogacy A Last Resort Alternative for Infertile Women or a Commodification of women’s bodies and children?, Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal Vol.12, pp118
Couples experiencing infertility issues now have a number of options at their disposal from in-vitro fertilization to intrauterine insemination or going as far as using a surrogate and donor eggs or donor sperm. Technology has made it possible for someone to experience the joy of parenthood regardless of whether they can naturally conceive children. All of these procedures come with their own ethical questions and pros and cons. One of the biggest moral dilemmas is what to do with the left-over embryos still in storage when a family has decided they have had enough children. Most couples see this ethical quandary because they recognize that the embryos are whole human beings and do not think it is morally right to dispose
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.
First, Morse breaks down her article into sections ranging from progressive to pro-liberty reasons why others should oppose surrogacy, one of her sections that I found was most intriguing was entitled “Pro-Woman Reasons to Oppose Surrogacy”. Morse believes that being a surrogate mother is “objectifying women”, she views the situation as a couple using a stranger as a “room for rent” for nine months to hold their child until they are ready to be born. After the baby is delivered, their surrogate mother is pretty much tossed to the side, after going through several emotional and physical changes with the baby growing inside of her, she is no longer need, even after having a relationship with the unborn child.
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 ...
Moreover, people opposed clinics destroying frozen embryos because it is the owner’s property. It is the owner’s (in this case donator) decision to determine what will happen to the embryos. There are people who have emotions towards their embryos. Especially for the donator that undergoes a lot of process creating those embryos. Based on an interview, a donator said that a lot of people put emotions and effort to produce the embryos. Embryos matter because they are special for the people who donated it and it is just a personal feeling. Because of this, they don’t accept their embryos disposed.
While surrogacy is a risky occupation, Prudy believes that women should be able to make that choice for themselves. Especially since in our daily lives we all engage in risky behaviors, such as driving a car or consuming alcohol. As a result, there is little reason to limit a woman’s choice in participating in surrogacy. However, Purdy admits that the current unregulated approach is unacceptable and legislations need to be endorsed in ordered to make the practice safer, since surrogacy will most likely continue to occur whether it is regulated or
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
Daniel Callahan, however, chooses to convey his argument about the bioethics of artificial insemination through a male perspective in his 1992 article “Bioethics and Fatherhood.” He argues that since the beginning of artificial insemination, there has been a trend to overlook the male and his anonymous donation of sperm. His writing style is fairly easy to read and very straightforward in an attempt to convey his point to the general population. His opinion is obvious through his very one-sided argument as well as occasional sarcastic remarks. For this, he does not base many of his points on factual evidence but more abstract, logically deduced theory. His argument is that this man, the sperm donor, is biologically responsible for the newly born child and its life thereafter. He bases his argument around the responsibility of the individual, the technology that allows men to be overlooked, and the rights movement that has lessened the responsibility of the man in fatherhood.
The bond between these two women and this child is permanent and cannot be changed by law. The law can only govern which woman has the legal right to raise the child. Works Cited Centre Points, Volume 1, No. 1, Article #2, Surrogate Motherhood and its Human Costs, Suzanne Rozell Scorsone, Ph.D. ;1-2 Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal.