In addition to the ethical issues touched upon here, two pieces of the puzzle are missing from this article, which is, overall, more nuanced than most of what I've seen on the subject.
The first--and most important piece--is how surrogacy affects the children who are born through it. Babies are born to bond with their mothers, and recogni…
In addition to the ethical issues touched upon here, two pieces of the puzzle are missing from this article, which is, overall, more nuanced than most of what I've seen on the subject.
The first--and most important piece--is how surrogacy affects the children who are born through it. Babies are born to bond with their mothers, and recognize the voices and smells of the person who carried them. We don't let puppies leave their mothers until they are at least eight weeks old, but children born through surrogacy are given to their intended parents almost immediately after their born.
The second piece is the health risk to the gestational surrogate. The evidence (and there isn't much of it because no one will do the research) seems to suggest that surrogate pregnancies are higher risk for the woman carrying the baby than a normal pregnancy would be. The Center for Bioethics and Culture (https://cbc-network.org/) has done a lot of work around this issue, and their documentary (Eggsploitation) and podcast (Venus Rising) are worth checking out for more information on this side of the issue.
I had a friend who was a gestational surrogate and her second surrogacy almost killed her. She almost bled to death and her husband had to watch it all unfold. It created quite a trauma for them.
Interestingly, I agree with a lot of your points but not your conclusions. Yes the bonding period right after birth is important, so wouldn’t it be extremely important for the baby to bond with the intended parents, who will be the ones to raise the baby? Yes, we don’t let puppies leave their mothers until 8 weeks, but I see that as a commentary to the lack of paid maternity leave for mothers in the US to give them time to focus all of their attention on their new baby, regardless of how that baby was born. It’s ridiculous that mothers need to find day cares for their weeks-old infant so that they can keep their jobs!
I came here to say this. What is the long term impact of ripping a baby away from the woman who carried her? You cannot just replace that with another person and think there is no difference.
One of the things the Center for Bioethics and Culture points out is that we always frame this discussion in terms of the desires of the adults involved, but no one stops to think about the children. They can't advocate for themselves here, so they get missed. At the very least, it needs to be part of the conversation. Katy Faust, of Them Before Us (https://thembeforeus.com/) talks about this, too.
"no one stops to think about the children. They can't advocate for themselves here, so they get missed" I couldn't agree more. These discussions seem only centered around the surrogate Mother or the parents purchasing the services. This is also the perspective that is generally ignored in the abortion debate. The children in both cases are referred to as if they were abstract commodities rather than individuals who just might have an opinion if we considered their perspective a bit more deeply...
Isn’t that what’s done with adoption? A child is “ripped from the woman who carried her”?
I understand the troubling ethics of renting a uterus—and in some cases, also purchasing the eggs—but there’s nothing new about children being raised by non-biological parents.
Adoption is remedial. For whatever reason, the child's biological parents cannot or will not care for the child. It is a fix for an existing child - it is not the genesis of the child's life.
The difference is when the child is conceived with the full knowledge that it will never know one or both of its biological parents. That is cruel.
Adoption is not the desired or planned outcome, it is done as a solution to a desperate situation. We should not hold it up as our standard of how we treat our children.
The difference is that adoption usually isn't intentional. Something else severs the parent/child bond in adoption, and adoption is a (hopefully) better fix for a bad situation. Surrogacy involves intentionally creating a child in order to separate that child from at the woman who carried her, and in many cases, at least one, if not both, biological parents.
Then yes, that it what happens with adoption, and that is part of why adoption - and surrogacy - are so traumatic. It's kind of like limb amputation - whether you do it because you like the way it looks or because you need to do it to save your life, the pain is somewhat similar. But the similarity is irrelevant. The "similarity" is analogous to the similarity between surrogacy because you want it and can buy it, and adoption because there is a baby and the birth parents simply can't, due to death or illness or extreme poverty, raise the child.
Excellent comments. I would love to see the surrogacy contracts that dictate what the surrogate can eat drink etc during the gestation period not to.mention the clause that exculpates the baby buyers idf the surrogate dies or otherwise suffers illness etc.
I have had friends who were surrogates and it literally does dictate what they can and cannot do. My friend stipulated she was no okay with reduction and that she would not again put more than one egg for implantation. She was able to dictate that because of the company she went with. The intended parents have a ton of say over the bodily autonomy of the surrogate.
In addition to the ethical issues touched upon here, two pieces of the puzzle are missing from this article, which is, overall, more nuanced than most of what I've seen on the subject.
The first--and most important piece--is how surrogacy affects the children who are born through it. Babies are born to bond with their mothers, and recognize the voices and smells of the person who carried them. We don't let puppies leave their mothers until they are at least eight weeks old, but children born through surrogacy are given to their intended parents almost immediately after their born.
The second piece is the health risk to the gestational surrogate. The evidence (and there isn't much of it because no one will do the research) seems to suggest that surrogate pregnancies are higher risk for the woman carrying the baby than a normal pregnancy would be. The Center for Bioethics and Culture (https://cbc-network.org/) has done a lot of work around this issue, and their documentary (Eggsploitation) and podcast (Venus Rising) are worth checking out for more information on this side of the issue.
I had a friend who was a gestational surrogate and her second surrogacy almost killed her. She almost bled to death and her husband had to watch it all unfold. It created quite a trauma for them.
Or just the regular risks of pregnancy.
Interestingly, I agree with a lot of your points but not your conclusions. Yes the bonding period right after birth is important, so wouldn’t it be extremely important for the baby to bond with the intended parents, who will be the ones to raise the baby? Yes, we don’t let puppies leave their mothers until 8 weeks, but I see that as a commentary to the lack of paid maternity leave for mothers in the US to give them time to focus all of their attention on their new baby, regardless of how that baby was born. It’s ridiculous that mothers need to find day cares for their weeks-old infant so that they can keep their jobs!
I came here to say this. What is the long term impact of ripping a baby away from the woman who carried her? You cannot just replace that with another person and think there is no difference.
One of the things the Center for Bioethics and Culture points out is that we always frame this discussion in terms of the desires of the adults involved, but no one stops to think about the children. They can't advocate for themselves here, so they get missed. At the very least, it needs to be part of the conversation. Katy Faust, of Them Before Us (https://thembeforeus.com/) talks about this, too.
Not surprising in a culture that routinely denies the basic humanity of all babies in the womb.
It's obvious, but has to be said: same goes for abortion.
Yep. It's hard (impossible?) to care about the bioethics of assisted reproduction and support abortion.
"no one stops to think about the children. They can't advocate for themselves here, so they get missed" I couldn't agree more. These discussions seem only centered around the surrogate Mother or the parents purchasing the services. This is also the perspective that is generally ignored in the abortion debate. The children in both cases are referred to as if they were abstract commodities rather than individuals who just might have an opinion if we considered their perspective a bit more deeply...
Isn’t that what’s done with adoption? A child is “ripped from the woman who carried her”?
I understand the troubling ethics of renting a uterus—and in some cases, also purchasing the eggs—but there’s nothing new about children being raised by non-biological parents.
Adoption is remedial. For whatever reason, the child's biological parents cannot or will not care for the child. It is a fix for an existing child - it is not the genesis of the child's life.
The difference is when the child is conceived with the full knowledge that it will never know one or both of its biological parents. That is cruel.
Adoption is not the desired or planned outcome, it is done as a solution to a desperate situation. We should not hold it up as our standard of how we treat our children.
Adoption is making the best of circumstances that have already happened. Surrogacy is intentionally creating the circumstance.
The difference is that adoption usually isn't intentional. Something else severs the parent/child bond in adoption, and adoption is a (hopefully) better fix for a bad situation. Surrogacy involves intentionally creating a child in order to separate that child from at the woman who carried her, and in many cases, at least one, if not both, biological parents.
I was addressing the point of being “ripped from the biological mother” not whether one was more noble than the other.
Then yes, that it what happens with adoption, and that is part of why adoption - and surrogacy - are so traumatic. It's kind of like limb amputation - whether you do it because you like the way it looks or because you need to do it to save your life, the pain is somewhat similar. But the similarity is irrelevant. The "similarity" is analogous to the similarity between surrogacy because you want it and can buy it, and adoption because there is a baby and the birth parents simply can't, due to death or illness or extreme poverty, raise the child.
Excellent comments. I would love to see the surrogacy contracts that dictate what the surrogate can eat drink etc during the gestation period not to.mention the clause that exculpates the baby buyers idf the surrogate dies or otherwise suffers illness etc.
I have had friends who were surrogates and it literally does dictate what they can and cannot do. My friend stipulated she was no okay with reduction and that she would not again put more than one egg for implantation. She was able to dictate that because of the company she went with. The intended parents have a ton of say over the bodily autonomy of the surrogate.
It’s like slavery except you get paid and not whipped!