Famous men and surrogacy

Why stop though? If she’s warm and functional, why not put another embryo in there? I mean, once we’ve crossed the line into a state where clinically brain dead women can incubate fetuses for money, why not just keep going?

We disagree. That's life. I think that you are making a lot of assumptions to presume that a surrogate isn't capable of making these considerations before they decide to do it.

I think that’s incredibly sad, mypuddin, if you’d happily let your sister vegetate on a ventilator, clinically brain dead.

But hey, once the end product is delivered to its legal proprieters, the woman's value as incubator has expired so the people who actually love her rather than seek to use her body for their own desires can take over.

So that's OK.

I think that’s incredibly sad, mypuddin, if you’d happily let your sister vegetate on a ventilator, clinically brain dead.

I also think, given that contracts are unenforceable, no intensive care unit worth its salt would deliberately keep a woman dead but warm just to serve as a commercial human incubator.

If that's the terms of their contract that in that situation that would be right.

So you believe it is 'right' that a woman - in the eyes of the law - should be seen primarily as a human incubator for strangers, rather than as someone loved dearly by those closest to her?

I really don't know how to respond to that.

Erm I think I have answered your question very clearly. If that's the terms of their contract that in that situation that would be right.

It'd be none of my sisters business at that point

I asked you a question 3 times and you still haven't read it!

Again: Would you think it totally right and fair that complete strangers should be allowed to keep your sister artificially alive so they can take delivery of the end product, over and above the desires of the people who love her? Yes or no?

And again I ask: Since you think the law should regulate such matters, why should we not have a contract whereby a mother can give away her 5 month old in order to give the 'joy of parenthood' to complete strangers?

mypuddin

By acknowledging that parents could decide not to take a baby home, despite agreeing to in a pre-pregnancy contract, you’re acknowledging that contracts are meaningless. So it doesn’t matter what is agreed upon before.

You cannot successfully contract a surrogacy arrangement. It just can’t be done.

@Powergower many many parents don't stay together.

It'd be none of my sisters business at that point. If I wanted it to be my sisters business I wouldn't have signed the contract or ensured that in such circumstances the decision was my next of kins, not the adoptive parents. As I've said many many times now, there is no one size fits all, it should be discussed and agreed before the pregnancy.

I oppose the concept completely. But exchanging a baby for money makes it so much worse.

I'm not the moral judge of what these people should agree in their contract

Well luckily other people are. The fact that there are people like you who would happily accept a contract stating a brain dead mother should be kept warm with circulation to get a fetus to a viable gestation is so abhorrent, it needs people like us to stand in the way of that.

www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/11/20390/

Thanks Rufus

Babies in exchange for money, in any contact whatsoever, it's despicable. Life and birth should not be commodotised. The 2 gay male couples I know who have used surrogates for children didn't stay together anyway. It's completely selfish tho buy in a baby, not to mention immoral and unethical.

If that is what both parties agreed when they drew up the contract, then yes.

And for the 3rd time - since you still haven't answered - you'd be more than happy if your sister were forced to remain in a coma until she produced the commissioned baby for complete strangers, even if you and the rest of her family found this heartbreaking?

I'm not the moral judge of what these people should agree in their contract.

This is an internet discussion so we are all moral judges. You believe the right of a commissioning couple to get the end product is more important than the woman's dignity or the rights of the person's next of kin. That's a moral judgement, one I thoroughly disagree with, but still a moral judgement.

But what I also asked - and you did not answer -is if you think such a 'contract' would or should be recognised in English law. If so, where do you think such legal rights should end. Should a mother have the legal right to sign a contract to give away her 5 month old? If not, why not?

So it's payment you oppose, not the concept itself?

what right have you got to tell me not to?

I’d expect the State to take action in the same way they stop you selling a kidney, despite knowing all the risks, but if you absolutely had to, and you went through extensive psychological assessment to make sure you fully understood, and you met physical criteria to make sure you were low risk, and you had all legal rights to your own body, I would still say you shouldn’t because you’re creating a baby solely for the intention of giving it away. It’s not like adoption when mothers find themselves in circumstances beyond their control; you would be deliberately making a baby to dispatch to someone else. If that was for money I would be appalled. If it was truly altruistic I could accept but not be happy about.

If that is what both parties agreed when they drew up the contract, then yes. I'm not the moral judge of what these people should agree in their contract.

You have not answered my questions. So I'll repeat:

*Let me get this straight: You are saying that under English law, a couple who might be complete strangers to the mother, should have the legal right to force her to stay attached to life support machines, against the will of those who love her, just so that the commissioning couple can have the product - the baby - they contracted for?

This is what you believe? You'd be perfectly happy if this were to happen to your sister, for example?*

I've repeatedly answered your questions, I don't agree with you in the slightest to the things you've said.

I'm happy to answer your question if you answer mine first @mypuddin.

In that scenario for example, a birth mother has entered the agreement under the impression that no matter what, the child they birth will be taken home and loved. But if the adopting parents feel they can’t, and renege on the contract, that birth mother has to face the possibility the child they birthed will go into care, unless she takes the child home. And your ok with this sort of stuff?

And no one can say “ how like is THAT?” because it’s inevitable that something utterly shit will happen; it has already.

Let me ask you. If I, being aware of all the risks you have put forward, if I choose to be a surrogate mother , what right have you got to tell me not to?

notbadconsidering

I’d just like to say how great i think your posts have been, its brought up stuff I’d never considered

Same as what happens in any situation where parents face that decision as to whether they are capable of bringing up a disabled child.

In that case, you’re admitting any contract isn’t worth jack shit. Which means you can’t legislate, you can’t protect everyone’s rights and when things go wrong, someone suffers.

On that argument no one asks to be born. I'm sure there are millions of people born to shit parents in shit circumstances that didn't ask to be born into those circumstances.

No. But we don't encourage this by drawing up contracts to regulate it.

Re the comma scenario, I would expect that to be covered in the contract.

Let me get this straight: You are saying that under English law, a couple who might be complete strangers to the mother, should have the legal right to force her to stay attached to life support machines, against the will of those who love her, just so that the commissioning couple can have the product - the baby - they contracted for?

This is what you believe? You'd be perfectly happy if this were to happen to your sister, for example?