How does someone come to the conclusion of...?

Floozy Moonshine

Isn't it great?

We (the adoption industry pigs) have gotten the American public so snowed into thinking that handing out and selling your children is the "loving thing" that people are actually willing to get pregnant for the sole purpose of getting rid of the kid.

It's pure magic, and my bank account thanks you.

Oh, who cares about the kid's feelings, we'll make sure they are just grateful to be walking this planet, and we'll feed them so much crap and spew about "loving choices" and being "gifts" that they will probably grow up and supply us with even MORE kids to sell!!!

It's like job security.

There's nothing more profitable than a grateful adoptee.

Torrejon

Although I can't answer your question, I offer this:

This is a clear case where medical science is too far ahead of the morality and ethics which should offer guidelines for such procedures.

Just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should.

dory

I find it so ironic that people are citing that the baby is often not the bio baby of the surrogate and therefore it's not really her baby and she's just an incubator. So why is the baby not really the surro's baby but with adoptive kids, the parents often have to claim the child as "really" theirs. Seems a bit of a double standard going on.

A woman can carry a baby for nine months and give it away because it's not hers but when a "birth" mother changes her mind and wants her child back one week after relinquishment the general population sides with the adoptive parents because they are the "real" parents.

Humpf.

LaurieDB

I'm glad I read the responses first, as Dory stated what I was planning to say. What a double standard! Suddenly biology matters when it can be used to "justify" surrogacy. "Birth" mothers have both biology AND the 9 months of carrying the child on their side, yet are STILL seen as somehow wrong for ultimately deciding to parent their own children when no adoption has even been finalized yet!

maybe

This is the result of the comodification of babies, thanks to adoption industry marketing. The adoption industry has successfully convinced society that certain "qualified" people are entitled to the babies of others. The only thing that matters is having the correct financial and social status to "qualify" for raising a child.

At the other end of the equation, it is perfectly acceptable to be a paid incubator for those properly "qualified" parents.

Pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood no longer hold a sacred place in our culture. You can thank the adoption industry for that.

Gaia Raain

My cousin wanted to be a surrogate many years ago. Her reasoning was:

She was VERY fertile
She wanted/needed the money
Might as well put two and two together.

I know she never followed through with it, but I don't know her reasons. And I can't comment on mental illness, as there are some pretty serious mental disorders (and a million minor ones) running in that side of the family. I don't know that there is a person I'm related to who doesn't suffer from at least a low-grade chronic depression, but most of it is untreated.

Angela Q

Women are socialized to be helpers, to be "giving", to make sacrifices to other people. Unfortunately, the woman who bears a child in this way is making a major sacrifice of her own health. The drugs that she must take to do this can take years off her life. Bearing children will increase her chance of developing diabetes and other chronic diseases. Even when women are paid, it is a pittance compared to what they may have lost healthwise. Yet we think it is wonderful that she was willing to sacrifice her health in this way for wealthy strangers, right?

Many women do also this because they are desperate for cash. This makes them easy to exploit. You do not find rich women acting as surrogates for poor women. Never.

If a woman gestates a baby in her womb, even is she is not genetically related to that baby, she has still gone through all the physical changes that a mother goes through. The genetic origin of the fertilized egg is irrelevant to her body, she has borne a child. To deny that, to say she is nothing more than a baby-incubating machine is a classist and self-serving lie. She is giving up a baby that she bore, just as much as if she conceived it herself and gave it up for adoption.

I think surrogacy should be limited to blood relatives. Womb-renting is morally reprehensible.

Amy J

My sister offered to be a surrogate for me and my husband. She already has 2 of her own children and watching me and my husband struggle with infertility broke her heart. We decided on getting our foster care license instead but I think she offered to be our surrogate because she loves us and knows how much joy it brings to your life being a parent.

Morgaine

I think surrogacy has its place, and most of what is done now is not the way surrogacy was intended.

I think when a close family member is the surrogate is the only appropriate and ethical way to use a surrogate pregnancy. I know a lot of people can't have a child of their own, but...to pay someone else to have the child for you, I just think that is...wrong. I wouldn't even think to ask my sister to have a baby for me, you know?

mia's mum

i would absolutely do it for a close friend if she couldn't carry her own child, I'm not too sure id do it for a compete stranger though. and as for being paid for it, i think that's awful. to me that goes under the same rule as selling your organs, a big nono in my books, however id gladly donate a kidney or bone marrow to a loved one. I'm getting off topic here sorry, basically i think surrogacy is an amazing gift to give to some one. and i think its absolutely amazing that we as human beings have found a way to do this wonderful thing, there's a lot to be said for science in my opinion.

â™¥â™¥Ritaâ™¥â™¥

Surrogate mothers do not always "get paid" and will do this for just having the medical bills paid.

Some women just like to be pregnant and I have heard of women who needed to be pregnant for their own health (<---yeah that is true) but did not want to have anymore children and provided this service to a couple who wanted to have a baby.

In India or other countries where people are seen as "impoverished", I can see where the lure of fairly easy money could be misconstrued as being "something wrong"....but childless couples are given the chance to be parents.....what is wrong with that??

Would it be wrong if a "mechanical womb" were available and babies were incubated in something other than a human uterus.....or would that be advancement in technology??

Why would you ask if this is a mental disorder??

I wished I could go through life with rose colored glasses on...the world would be a wonderful place to be...all the time!!

=====================

I am glad I am afforded the opportunity to have my own opinions and other people can have theirs and folks who want to adopt can do so...and those who want to surrogate can do that as well. So thumb me down all you want!!

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: