Surrogacy?

For and against arguments


By this I want to see non sexual orientation arguments, because this applies to all sexual orientations.

Interested in peoples views

I  don't really know that much about it.

I do know there are lots of rules and laws that make it difficult in this country, which is probably why some couples go abroad to find a suitable surrogate mother. I believe here a surrogate mother can agree to hand over the child then  change her mind when it's born, and the law would be on her side, so it's an expensive and risky business with possibly no baby at the end for the couple who have hired the surrogate.

It possibly benefits the organisations that run these clinics more than it benefits the people involved.

On the other hand some couples are so desperate for a child they will pay the costs and take the risks.

Syl wrote:I  don't really know that much about it.

I do know there are lots of rules and laws that make it difficult in this country, which is probably why some couples go abroad to find a suitable surrogate mother. I believe here a surrogate mother can agree to hand over the child then  change her mind when it's born, and the law would be on her side, so it's an expensive and risky business with possibly no baby at the end for the couple who have hired the surrogate.

It possibly benefits the organisations that run these clinics more than it benefits the people involved.

On the other hand some couples are so desperate for a child they will pay the costs and take the risks.

Thanks for your views here Syl and hoping more will offer up their views around

Radical feminism believes surrogacy is wrong and I am open to both sides of opinion here, because they believe wombs should not be open to exploitation

I mean the reality is does this also not hinder adoption?

Are people more concerned around passing on their genes than adopting a child that is in need of a loving home?

I am at a cross roads around this to be honest and hence why I would like people to express their views here.

Let me know your thoughts Syl and thanks again

I think adoption and surrogacy are completely different, adoption  has to be much easier, but obviously not for everyone.
I suppose if a woman cant get pregnant or carry a child, borrowing someone elses womb for nine months is the nearest thing.
If it's the womans own egg or the mans own sperm that's being used, the child will biologically be part of them.

I have an old friend from school who I ran into a few years ago while coming home from work, we chatted a bit and she mentioned family and children etc... and she said that although she was 40 and had been married for over 10 years, she didn't yet have children of her own... I didn't want to ask too much about such a sensitive subject, but she volunteered the reason as being that it wasn't for the lack of trying, in fact she and husband had conceived many times over the years, but she said that medically, her body was just not a comfortable enough place for a conception to survive long enough through pregnancy to be able to deliver even a premature baby birth... She said that she was told that she could keep trying and maybe one would make it through to... (sorry for my turn of phrase here)... the 'grand opening'...


I personally don't see a problem with them choosing to try the surrogate route... As long as all were willing participants etc...


There are plenty of women out there who have had children of their own already and who would be happy to help another couple bringing the gift of a child into their lives!

Just had a thought...


For many decades now, single women have been able to have children of their own by getting a 'donation' from a sperm bank etc... And of course the other way since the beginning of time by just getting jiggy with whoever until nature takes its course...


Basically, as they have the biological in house incubating system within, they have been able to do pretty much have all the power and control regarding the creation of children etc...


Now... How about all those decent single guys out there who really want children of their own, but just can't find a suitable woman to start a family with...?


How about... all these guys are able to go to an 'egg bank', made up from womens donations... And are then able to put their own sperm together with this egg, and get a conception, and then that could be carried by a surrogate female...???





I bet this proposal bends a few posters minds out of shape...!!!

I do support it for people who can't otherwise have children for whatever reason. And I think the law should absolutely be in favour of the 'parents' and not the surrogate in those instances.

However, I sympathise with the view it impacts adoption (though I'd hazard a guess the impact is minimal). Personally, if we ever wanted children then I've said we should adopt, since either option is 'difficult' then we should use the choice to do some good by giving a home to a child who otherwise might not have one.

Eilzel wrote:I do support it for people who can't otherwise have children for whatever reason. And I think the law should absolutely be in favour of the 'parents' and not the surrogate in those instances.

However, I sympathise with the view it impacts adoption (though I'd hazard a guess the impact is minimal). Personally, if we ever wanted children then I've said we should adopt, since either option is 'difficult' then we should use the choice to do some good by giving a home to a child who otherwise might not have one.

I think that's great, and obviously many people do think like that, especially if they are willing to take on older children.

I don't know the numbers, but I imagine there is a very limited number of small babies to be adopted in many countries nowadays, it was different way back when having a child 'out of wedlock' was not socially accepted, then, obviously more newborn babies were available for adoption.

I also think it would be the woman who would be more in favour of having a surrogate. The biological urge to mother is very strong in many women, if she is unable to have her own child, giving part of herself (or her partner) to create a child is closer to fill that need than adoption could be.

Didgee wrote:

Syl wrote:I  don't really know that much about it.

I do know there are lots of rules and laws that make it difficult in this country, which is probably why some couples go abroad to find a suitable surrogate mother. I believe here a surrogate mother can agree to hand over the child then  change her mind when it's born, and the law would be on her side, so it's an expensive and risky business with possibly no baby at the end for the couple who have hired the surrogate.

It possibly benefits the organisations that run these clinics more than it benefits the people involved.

On the other hand some couples are so desperate for a child they will pay the costs and take the risks.

Thanks for your views here Syl and hoping more will offer up their views around

Radical feminism believes surrogacy is wrong and I am open to both sides of opinion here, because they believe wombs should not be open to exploitation


Are people more concerned around passing on their genes than adopting a child that is in need of a loving home?

it's difficult, didge.

personally, i would say that there are so many unwanted children in the care system that if a couple can't have children surely the best thing would be to adopt one that needs a loving home

however, i'm well aware that i'm saying that from the comfortable position of having had 3 of my own so i can't understand the torment that not having a child can bring people.

as for the radical feminists,,,''they believe wombs should not be open to exploitation''

they are so stupid. i thought their whole mantra was ''my body my choice''

but not when it comes to surrogacy?

fuckwits imo

what say you?

gelico wrote:

Didgee wrote:


Thanks for your views here Syl and hoping more will offer up their views around

Radical feminism believes surrogacy is wrong and I am open to both sides of opinion here, because they believe wombs should not be open to exploitation


Are people more concerned around passing on their genes than adopting a child that is in need of a loving home?

it's difficult, didge.

personally, i would say that there are so many unwanted children in the care system that if a couple can't have children surely the best thing would be to adopt one that needs a loving home

however, i'm well aware that i'm saying that from the comfortable position of having had 3 of my own so i can't understand the torment that not having a child can bring people.

as for the radical feminists,,,''they believe wombs should not be open to exploitation''

they are so stupid.  i thought their whole mantra was ''my body my choice''

but not when it comes to surrogacy?

fuckwits imo

what say you?

lol yes radical feminism does tend to contradict itself

I mean if a woman is willing, then I see no harm, I just fear an exploitation of women around this

Great points Gelico

Also Eilzel, excellent points and its nice to read peoples thoughts on this

If there are so many "unwanted" children in society, how about passing a law that before anyone has a child naturally, s/he must adopt at least one child first.

I realize that's extreme, and I'm unsure if I favor it myself, but it does pose the problem in stark relief. It doesn't prohibit natural child bearing, but says: take care of one population before creating another population.

Original Quill wrote:

I realize that's extreme, and I'm unsure if I favor it myself, but it does pose the problem in stark relief.  It doesn't prohibit natural child bearing, but says: take care of one population before creating another population.

you do raise a very valid point though

Original Quill wrote:If there are so many "unwanted" children in society, how about passing a law that before anyone has a child naturally, s/he must adopt at least one child first.

I realize that's extreme, and I'm unsure if I favor it myself, but it does pose the problem in stark relief.  It doesn't prohibit natural child bearing, but says: take care of one population before creating another population.

In theory that sounds very humanitarian, in practice I suspect it would lead to more child abuse.

I think surrogacy is a great idea as long as there’s a watertight contract drawn up.

I knew a lady once who was a surrogate for many parents. She did it for the money initially but she told me that after the first time and seeing the new parents crying when they received their beautiful “gift” the money became secondary. It’s weird actually, because I never really liked her before that - she was a mouthy cow - but I think doing that softened her and she changed for the better somehow.

A few thoughts ...

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with Tommy's "egg-bank" idea. I think the reason they don't already exist is because besides needing the egg, you also need the surrogate, and that probably makes it impractical. Also, most men would vastly prefer to have a child the old-fashioned way, if they're inclined to have sex with women ...

I think the reason many couples would prefer to have a surrogate mother bring their child into the world is that people have an instinct to reproduce and to parent. These are things that are genetically hard-wired into many people, otherwise none of us would be here, right?

It would be great if every couple that couldn't concieve would adopt, but I think a lot of people wrongly think that an adopted a child wouldn't be "theirs."

Original Quill wrote:If there are so many "unwanted" children in society, how about passing a law that before anyone has a child naturally, s/he must adopt at least one child first.

I realize that's extreme, and I'm unsure if I favor it myself, but it does pose the problem in stark relief.  It doesn't prohibit natural child bearing, but says: take care of one population before creating another population.

That’s a very valid and noble idea, Quill. I think it’s a pretty bloody good way to get some of these parentless children adopted.