According to a New York Times article, A New York same sex couple Brad Hoylman and David Sigal, had a child via gestational surrogate- in California. The NYT article describes a gestational surrogate as a process “in which a woman is paid to go through the pregnancy and birth of a child who is not genetically related to her and then promises to give that child away.” The reason this couple had this process done in another state is that New York State does not allow commercial surrogate contracts, this is accordance to a 1992 law that equates such activities with baby selling, a residual effect of the “Baby M” case in New Jersey. The NYT article mentions that “Helene Weinstein, the Brooklyn Democratic assemblywoman who sponsored the resulting 1992 New York law, said it sent a message that children should not be “treated as commodities to be bought and sold.”
Baby M saga resulted in a groundbreaking court decision that is still with us today. Baby M is the story of a married woman, Mary Beth Whitehead agreed in 1985 to have another man’s for $10,000. When the time came to turn over the child, Mrs. Whitehead reneged on the arrangement, renounced the fee and took the child to Florida. On appeal the New Jersey Supreme court restored Mrs. Whitehead’s parental rights, while at the same time giving custody to the biological father and his wife. The high court comment; “This is the sale of a child, or at the very least, the sale of a mother’s right to her child, the only mitigating factor being that one of the purchasers is the father.”
The differences in these two events are, 1) the gestational surrogate has no genetic attachment to the implanted egg, it is from a donor. 2) Instead of bonding with the baby, “the gestational carrier b...
... middle of paper ...
...uch as Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and California permit the practice. The woman is offering a service and should be compensated, just as any other service. This practice would not spell the end for compassionate surrogacy. This process would not do away with the state/agency adoption but potentially widen the circle that care to participate.
Although the protagonists in the NYT article are gay- this is not a gay problem. There are many couples that for one reason or another cannot have children. If compensated surrogacy can give these couples a chance to acquire and care for a child then make it so. The government either federal are state should only make sure of the health and viability of donor, egg and parents. The Baby M story should be used as an example on how not to do surrogacy, not a straightjacket forbidding compensated 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.
Kemp, Joe. “Fetus of pregnant, brain-dead Texas woman ‘distinctly abnormal’: lawyers.” NYDailyNews. New York Daily News. 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
In Janssen v. Alicea case, 30 So. 3d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), a child was born to biological parents who were close friends via artificial insemination. After two years, the mother decided to move to California with the child and the father filed a claim to establish his paternity rights. 6The child's birth certificate listed the names of both the father and the mother. One of the parts argued they have a prior oral agreement and they would be co-parenting the boy. The mother defended claiming that the father was a simply sperm donor6 defined by F.S. §742.148 and that his parental rights were relinquished. Primarily, the court ruled in favor of the mother and the father appealed the decision arguing that both parties were a “commissioning couple” (FL§742.138)6 and, therefore, he was not giving up his parental rights. The
Since its publication in 1925, The Great Gatsby has remained a spot-on representation of a time in American history in which the people believed anything was possible. Gatsby is the definition of this idea. The underlying cause of everything in this novel is his--and in essence everyone’s idea. This idea is the ubiquitous notion of the American Dream. And Fitzgerald does not only write about the American Dream, but about its corruption as well. This following quote truly epitomizes what the American Dream had become in the eyes of Fitzgerald:
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.
“Can a man give up rights to a child without the mother's consent?” Wikianswer, Web, 8 Nov. 2011
“Sometimes when making something so precious, beautiful and unique, it takes an extra helping heart” (Author Unknown). To me, surrogate motherhood is giving the gift of a child to an individual who cannot carry a child themselves. I chose this topic because it interests me to see what kind of problems are linked with the journey of surrogacy. I have seen plenty of fictional movies about surrogate mothers, and I wanted to learn if any of these issues happened in real life situations. Before I began my research I thought about the ethical, legal, and social problems that could arise during the process of surrogacy. Legally, I thought you could be a surrogate
The Roe v. Wade case, brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, resulted in the Court’s determination that women have the constitutional right to have an abortion prior to when the fetus is viable, meaning when it can survive on its own outside the woman’s womb. Since this decision was handed down, Roe v. Wade has been the subject of a constant, divisive public and political debate regarding its moral, ethical and constitutional merits. The plaintiff, Norma McCorvey, who represented all women who are pregnant in the case, used the alias “Jane Roe.” The defendant was the county of Dallas, Texas. Roe’s claim charged that the abortion law in Texas was in violation of the constitutional rights of her and all other pregnant women. The Supreme
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 ...
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.
A woman enters into a contract that consists on her getting pregnant with a strangers sperms, and after the baby is born, to give up the baby. The stranger is going to pay the medical expenses and $10,000 in exchange of claiming all the parental rights when the baby is born. The stranger is a good person who has not been able to have children on his own. Why does the morality of the action may seem doubtful? Philosopher Elizabeth Anderson wrote an essay called “is Women’s Labor a Commodity?” to explain in detail the reasons of commercial surrogacy being morally wrong. In her paper, Anderson explains that commercial surrogacy treats children and parental rights as objects that could be bought and sold for personal convenience. According to
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