You can get a woman in India to have your baby for $10,000. The whole package should cost about $20, 000, including the egg (if you aren't supplying your own.)
I kind of don't want to get married but I don't want to miss out on being a father to a child that bears my genes. So cheap surrogacy (compared to what you'd have to pay to women in the U.S) seems like a fine option. But is it ethical? Is it exploitative? What do you think?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Good friends of mine are doing it right now. And it does end up costing more than that. They have to fly to India to make the donation (they chose the father with the higher sperm count). They then have to fly back well before the due date, and stay for a couple of weeks after at a hotel.
The woman however is living very well. They Skype with her on a regular basis. She is married and has three children of her own. It sounds to me like my friends are being exploited more than she is. Adopting a baby in the States takes forever. Finding a woman to volunteer to take your baby privately here risks her coming back later and wanting the baby. Using a donated egg and a surrogate here costs so much more. India knows this and takes full advantage of the situation.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:I kind of don't want to get married
Wow, what a _complete_ surprise.
Well, it sounds like a perfect option for a complete misogynist like you. You get to pass on your genes, and keep all females involved very far away from you with no "threatening" legal rights to the child.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm completely unsurprised by any part of the OP.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: India knows this and takes full advantage of the situation.
From the article, it sounds like Indians rather than India. But yes, it does sound like a good development.
I've run across the occasional article from China where the practice is apparently lucrative enough to lure away some sex workers into the trade, so thats a pretty nice side-effect (if true anyways).
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
I kind of don't want to get married...
It's not really up to you. If a woman decides she wants to be married to you, you can be sure that she'll make it happen sooner or later. So, no, you'll never get married.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Woe betide any daughter of Clive's. He does know that it's a 50/50 chance, right?
I always feel like I should be against this sort of thing, but as far as I can see it's very much the woman's choice - and you could secure your own family's finances forever as well as making someone else very happy.
There are much worse ways of making money.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
Surrogacy for pay is just like selling your organs or sex. It's funny that this is less vilified.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Clive Candy seems to be suggesting that we now out-source child birth to India and assumably other countries where rates are cheaper than the over-priced American women we are used to.
So if you are afraid of women, but still want to be involved in the degradation and daily traumatization of your spawn contact our troll for reccomendations. But remember to pay the extra money for some good ol' U.S. of A female bits... because unlike whoring out the womb of a woman on the other side of the world, inter-breeding is wrong.
Thank you for reading this very very very literal and serious statement, and did anyone else find the cookie jokes in Hidden Empire a bit lacking?
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Surrogacy for pay is just like selling your organs or sex. It's funny that this is less vilified.
Prostitution is vilified in America because women want to collectively inflate the price of sex. And yes, I suspect that surrogacy (even in India!) will soon become a target of feminists who want to make it expensive for straight single men to have babies without needing a wife/girlfriend. The only thing keeping it from happening right now is the fact that it's very useful for women with actual fertility problems and gay males.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Surrogacy for pay is just like selling your organs or sex. It's funny that this is less vilified.
Renting your organs.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Clive... can we put you on T.V. in some capacity? like maybe a new spin on Bill Cosby's Kids Say the Darndest Things, I think the ratings would be good.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: Prostitution is vilified in America because women want to collectively inflate the price of sex.
Yeah, that sounds reasonable.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It takes a very, very special sort of person to honestly believe that the cultural taboo of prostitution in this country is the result of women collectively engaging in a conspiratorial price-fixing scheme for sex.
Especially considering that prostitution is primarily an industry of exploitation towards women and bears little resemblance to an empowering cabal or cartel.
Clive is very special.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by theamazeeaz: Surrogacy for pay is just like selling your organs or sex. It's funny that this is less vilified.
Prostitution is vilified in America because women want to collectively inflate the price of sex. And yes, I suspect that surrogacy (even in India!) will soon become a target of feminists who want to make it expensive for straight single men to have babies without needing a wife/girlfriend. The only thing keeping it from happening right now is the fact that it's very useful for women with actual fertility problems and gay males.
While I will not deny that high-end prostitutes prefer their trade remain illegal so they can still command their ($100+/hr) rates-- I've read as much myself-- there is no female conspiracy to do so. Either that or my women friends have left me out on the loop. Nope. Don't think it's that one. Sorry. Prostitution is off the radar for most women as a career or something to lobby about.
In fact, the cost of hiring a prostitute has gone DOWN in recent decades simply because the sexual revolution has made it easier for MEN to get sex outside of marriage. For free. Or at least that's what the new Freakonomics book says. Hence demand has gone down. If women want to collectively inflate the price of sex, then that was a big fat mistake.
Prostitution is vilified because our culture is uncomfortable about sex. That discomfort translates to the concept that a woman having sex is giving away something that is not only priceless, but also includes an irreplaceable part of the soul.
You have no idea what the word feminist means. The definition has been unfortunately subverted, and you seem to think that it means "obnoxious women who get in your way".
Actually, a feminist is a person who believe that women and men should have equal rights.
The people who are against surrogacy are the people who think that having someone else's baby on purpose cannot be compensated for because it takes something away from the surrogate.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:While I will not deny that high-end prostitutes prefer their trade remain illegal so they can still command their ($100+/hr) rates-- I've read as much myself-- there is no female conspiracy to do so. Either that or my women friends have left me out on the loop. Nope. Don't think it's that one. Sorry. Prostitution is off the radar for most women as a career or something to lobby about.
I think you misunderstood what he was getting at. He was calling marriage an expensive form of prostitution, one that competes with the taboo sort.
Less saliently: $100 would be below the mean, judging by what I see on Craigslist. Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:I think you misunderstood what he was getting at. He was calling marriage an expensive form of prostitution, one that competes with the taboo sort.
Goes hand in hand with his statement about not wanting to get married. I guess if he wants to pay prostitutes they'll get a better deal out of it.
In answer to the original question, yes it's unethical and exploitative.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Actually, a feminist is a person who believe that women and men should have equal rights.
I think this is a great theoretical definition of what we would like feminism to be. It may even be what the majority of feminists think it means in the 21st century. But there are too many examples of feminists who think women should get a lot of special exceptions and rights that they feel men should not have for me to believe this is an accurate description of the feminist movement over time.
I'll admit to not having spent as much time studying feminism as I have other disciplines of history, but radical feminists have played a prominent role in American history, and they weren't always, or even a majority of the time, simply arguing for parity.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Troll. Troll. Troll. Mysoginistic, racist troll. That's all he is. Stop feeding the creep.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: I kind of don't want to get married but I don't want to miss out on being a father to a child that bears my genes. So cheap surrogacy (compared to what you'd have to pay to women in the U.S) seems like a fine option. But is it ethical? Is it exploitative? What do you think?
Please, please please refrain from breeding. The gene pool is polluted enough as it is.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Clive, I want to thank you. First, for not getting married. That's really a very good idea. And second, for making me laugh. It never fails. Troll or not, I do enjoy your wildly inappropriate ramblings.
Inflating the price of sex...ha! It's not even something I've heard before. It's great.
Oh, and do us all a favor and don't become a father by any means, including surrogacy. I'm not sure if it would be worse if you had a daughter you hated or a son who turned out just like you.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
I actually think Clive has a good plan, with just two changes. 1. Use donated sperm. 2. Immediately put the baby up for adoption.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
According to Clive's reasoning, shouldn't we be exposing our daughters like the Chinese and ancient Greeks? I mean, that'd really throttle the supply and raise prices.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I want to be married one day, sooner the better. Having someone whose more or less going to be your best friend with you for so much of you life would be a sweet deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: According to Clive's reasoning, shouldn't we be exposing our daughters like the Chinese and ancient Greeks? I mean, that'd really throttle the supply and raise prices.
To be fair to the Greeks, they weren't misogynists. They practiced gender blind natricide. They exposed boys too. And in fact, some Greek cultures, like Sparta, gave women more rights than any other antiquity culture up to that time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In a way, technically, it would actually work to raise prices. For example:
quote:Now some of these men have reached marriageable age, resulting in intense competition for spouses, especially in rural areas. It also appears to have caused a sharp spike in bride prices and betrothal gifts. The higher prices are even found in big cities such as Tianjin.
A study by Columbia University economist Shang-Jin Wei found that some areas in China with a high proportion of males have an above-average savings rate, even after accounting for factors such as education levels, income and life-expectancy rates. Areas with more men than women, the study notes, also have low spending rates -- suggesting that many rural Chinese may be saving up for bride prices.
quote:While there are no nationwide statistics, wedding scams have occurred before, but usually isolated cases. Mr. Tang, Xin'an's Communist Party secretary, says he has never before seen such clusters of cases. Most of the 11 families involved lost an average of 40,000 yuan.
That said, if I understand Clive's reasoning, this would not necessarily agree with his depiction of a feminist conspiracy since there would also be associated jumps in rates (and prices) of prostitution and (I suspect) rates of mistresses.
Rather, it seems that the goal of the conspiracy is to maximize the number of women that are actually married to men since that is the most expensive and thus most "exploitative" form of "prostitution" since it includes the possibility of ongoing costs (as opposed to one-time costs).
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I want to be married one day, sooner the better. Having someone whose more or less going to be your best friend with you for so much of you life would be a sweet deal.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: According to Clive's reasoning, shouldn't we be exposing our daughters like the Chinese and ancient Greeks? I mean, that'd really throttle the supply and raise prices.
This is really dumb, even for you.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
That website you linked to is fascinating for its lack of references. Even more fascinating are the sites listed as its "Partners."
I mean, it lists a "reference," but a link or a report or some proof of any kind would have been nice.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I want to be married one day, sooner the better. Having someone whose more or less going to be your best friend with you for so much of you life would be a sweet deal.
I hate you, please go away.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: According to Clive's reasoning, shouldn't we be exposing our daughters like the Chinese and ancient Greeks? I mean, that'd really throttle the supply and raise prices.
To be fair to the Greeks, they weren't misogynists. They practiced gender blind natricide. They exposed boys too. And in fact, some Greek cultures, like Sparta, gave women more rights than any other antiquity culture up to that time.
While the Spartans of the Classical age were certainly far less misogynistic than any of the other Hellenic cultures, Ancient Greece as a whole (and certainly Classical Athenian society) was incredibly mysogynistic.
There is some evidence that the Etruscans weren't the mysogynists that many of the rest of the ancient Mediterranian cultures were, by the way.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
A comment on divorcerate.org: I wish it had more useful numbers or raw data available. I see that 36.6% of women who divorce are between 20-24 years old. However it doesn't tell me anything about marrying (first marriage, lets say) between 20-24 (for example) and my statistical chance of being divorced.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
Divorcerate.org's resources page seems to be heavily Indian/Hindi, and includes links to guitar chords, free online piano lessons, free dragon pictures, free jokes and fun stuff, Neopets cheats and netpets hacks, and Tricks raning [sic] from card tricsk [sic] to magic tricks.
Just sayin'
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Yes I can see that it's really just a place for advertisement revenue. However I still wish it had better statistics on it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Clive, I won't attack you for your desire to be a father.
You don't seem to trust women in general, and women who want to get married in particular. That is your right. So stay away from them.
You want to pass on your genes, perhaps donating to a sperm bank might be less costly and less time consuming than going to a surrogate in India.
If you do want to raise a child on your own make sure you are ready to handle a girl as well as a boy. Could you really spend hours cleaning up after a girl child? Caring for her, changing her, all by yourself?
If you can honestly say you can, then do what you think is best. This is a free country.
Now, your comment about women using prostitution to keep the value of sex artificially high has a lot of flaws in it. Mostly its egotistical. It is paranoid, in that you are postulating that woman all over the world are doing something just to cause you and other men an inconvenience. Like most paranoid concepts, this is all based around the idea that everything anyone does is about you or people like you.
Frankly, women have more important things to think about than you, and less ability to work as a unified force than you give them credit for. Sex out of wedlock is looked upon as a sin because it can and did lead to pregnancies out of wedlock. This was dangerous for the mother and the child. After a safer society was created, where single mothers didn't have their kids starve and women were no longer considered property to be damaged by another's handling, they taboo remained.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I saw this interesting episode of Dr. Phil where these folks got a surrogate who decided to keep the children because the mother who wanted the children had mental illnesses. Which doesn't really seem right to me. She had a homestudy. Doctor's notes. All of that stuff. Yet, because she has some unspecified psychosis the surrogate stepped in and took the twins and won't return them. It really bothered me because she said she had it under control with medicines and the like.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I saw this interesting episode of Dr. Phil where these folks got a surrogate who decided to keep the children because the mother who wanted the children had mental illnesses. Which doesn't really seem right to me. She had a homestudy. Doctor's notes. All of that stuff. Yet, because she has some unspecified psychosis the surrogate stepped in and took the twins and won't return them. It really bothered me because she said she had it under control with medicines and the like.
"...the like" being her other personality who helps out with parental responsibilities? Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
(Psychosis generally doesn't refer to multiple personalities)
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Renting your organs.
Thank you for this I read this while drinking some water and laughed/choked hard enough to have some coworkers ask if I was ok...It reminds of a Family Guy episode where the punchline about beer is that you are only renting it from the brewer.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I saw this interesting episode of Dr. Phil where these folks got a surrogate who decided to keep the children because the mother who wanted the children had mental illnesses. Which doesn't really seem right to me. She had a homestudy. Doctor's notes. All of that stuff. Yet, because she has some unspecified psychosis the surrogate stepped in and took the twins and won't return them. It really bothered me because she said she had it under control with medicines and the like.
That's on right now.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yeah, that would be dissociative disorder. Different from Schizophrenia (which I can never spell) or an otherwise not specified psychosis.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: I saw this interesting episode of Dr. Phil where these folks got a surrogate who decided to keep the children because the mother who wanted the children had mental illnesses. Which doesn't really seem right to me. She had a homestudy. Doctor's notes. All of that stuff. Yet, because she has some unspecified psychosis the surrogate stepped in and took the twins and won't return them. It really bothered me because she said she had it under control with medicines and the like.
That's on right now.
The surrogate bothered me so much. I don't think what she and her husband did was right.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I would actually have a hard time faulting a surrogate for changing her mind about giving up a baby that she gestated. I'd like to think that if my wife and I ever sought help from a surrogate mother, we'd approach it with the mindset that all of our decisions were subject to the surrogate's continued agreement. As much as we'd have a lot of hopes (and probably money) pinned on the outcome, the woman with the baby in her tummy is the one with the most at stake - physically and emotionally.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:If you do want to raise a child on your own make sure you are ready to handle a girl as well as a boy. Could you really spend hours cleaning up after a girl child? Caring for her, changing her, all by yourself?[/QB]
A reaction against feminist excesses does not equal to a blind hatred of the female gender. This is the same tactic shrill feminists take anytime anyone takes issue with them. This person who's arguing against us cannot possibly have a rational basis to disagree with us -- no, he must have a blind, irrational hatred towards the female gender. Therefore, we can continue to exist in la-la land where we are never wrong and where the only people who disagree with us are driven by blind hatred.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: As much as we'd have a lot of hopes (and probably money) pinned on the outcome, the woman with the baby in her tummy is the one with the most at stake - physically and emotionally.
Physically, yes.
Emotionally? Why so?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think there would (potentially) be a bond with the fetus that could cause a sense of loss and maybe grief upon separation.
Also, post-partum depression.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've never been pregnant, of course. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: A reaction against feminist excesses does not equal to a blind hatred of the female gender.
A reaction against the misgynistic, homophobic, antisemitic droolings of the village idiot does not equate to a blind hatred of said idiot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ... the woman with the baby in her tummy is the one with the most at stake - physically and emotionally.
Well, there is the baby as well. We can both guess what the kid would think (and disagree ), but if it were me in that position I would be pretty upset at being separated from my real parents against their will.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think there would (potentially) be a bond with the fetus that could cause a sense of loss and maybe grief upon separation.
Also, post-partum depression.
As opposed to parents who have (usually) been trying to get pregnant for years and years without success, and who are (more commonly than not) actually genetically related to the child (the surrogate usually is not)? I decided a while back that I couldn't go through the emotional trauma of being a surrogate. But to claim that they are more emotionally invested in the baby than the parents is, IMO, patently false in most cases.
Posted by Clive Candy (Member # 11977) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: A reaction against feminist excesses does not equal to a blind hatred of the female gender.
A reaction against the misgynistic,
Taking issue with with the excesses of feminism does not mean one is misogynistic.
quote: homophobic
I oppose gay marriage and the normalization of homosexual behavior.
quote:antisemitic
The Jewish people are highly ethnocentric and act in a clannish fashion. Anti-semitism, pogroms, general suspicion of Jews, etc, is a natural, defensive reaction to this behavior. Anti-semitism would undoubtedly have disappeared (except for the mild "they killed Jesus" kind) if Jews only gave up the whole tribal loyalty thing.
quote: droolings of the village idiot does not equate to a blind hatred of said idiot.
And finally, the substance: "You is an idiot." You too, weirdo.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"Anti-semitism would undoubtedly have disappeared (except for the mild "they killed Jesus" kind) if Jews only gave up the whole tribal loyalty thing."
Heh... and Jews in any recognizable form would have also disappeared. Which is of course what you're after.
Out groups will always exist. Those that assimilate eventually cease to exist. It has happened thousands of times in recorded history. You might as well complain that if Americans only dropped this whole Christianity and freedom and patriotism and constitution thing, and became Muslim, then the terrorists would stop attacking. Yes. Yes they would stop attacking. But because America is protectionist and "clannish," we deserve what we get. You're so Calvinist, I'd bet if a meteor hit your neighbor's house, you would blame them for "wanting" to live in a house that was in danger of being hit by a meteor. They shouldn't have lived above ground if they weren't willing to take that risk, right?
You're just saying this because you don't think Judaism or Jewish culture is worth preserving. Ultimately, that's just because you're a small minded bigot. Of all possible groups, honestly, I don't see why the Jews go in for so much criticism. Even if you just plum don't like their beliefs, Jews as a group, of all people, present no threat to your way of life. But cognitive dissonance and a lack of real perspective or insight into the causes of pogroms and ethnic-cleansing, which have *everything* to do with nationalist power consolidation and *nothing* to do with the specifics of any minority culture, must give you a lot of cognitive dissonance. You're obviously one of those people who hears stories about the Holocaust, about millions of Germans and Czechs, Pols, Italians, French, Danes, Russians, and Ukrainians allowing their neighbors and their neighbors children to be carted off and slaughtered like pigs, and you think: "well I mean, seriously, who would allow that unless those people deserved it!"
It is sad that you don't realize this about yourself. It is sad that our society produces people who have been so poorly educated, reared, and informed. It's also a shame. It echoes a shame that the western world still carries today for what has been done, and often more importantly, what people have failed to do to stop it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think we can blame society for Clive. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: [QUOTE]A reaction against feminist excesses does not equal to a blind hatred of the female gender. This is the same tactic shrill feminists take anytime anyone takes issue with them. This person who's arguing against us cannot possibly have a rational basis to disagree with us
You haven't been told that you cannot possibly have a rational basis for disagreement. It's just been noted that you do not have a rational basis for disagreement. Ever. You have the dumbest, most fallacious arguments this forum has seen since Bean Counter. You weren't content to leave that to just having terrible arguments about the 'unnatural' nature of homosexuality and your general, misogynistic psychotic tirade against women. Now you are going out of your way to make dumb arguments talking about the justification of anti-semitic acts.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:A reaction against feminist excesses does not equal to a blind hatred of the female gender.
Clive, I never mentioned feminist excesses, nor have you. You mentioned prostitution as a conspiracy to increase the value of sex. That is not feminist.
You have mentioned a lot of issues with women. I did not say that you hated them, but that you showed a constant distrust of them and I wanted to make sure there was not a anti-female bias that would stop you from taking proper care of a girl child.
Oh, and the admin asked to avoid your views on Jewish culture until he has a chance to look at it. Please respect his request.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rather, restriction and stigmatization of prostitution as a conspiracy to increase the cost of sex
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As someone weighing in on the surrogate mother keeping the baby when she found out about the prospective mother' health problems: I sympathize with the surrogate mother here. She has, in her power, the choice of whether or not to give up a baby to someone who wouldn't be able to pass a screening for adoption, and that knowledge was deliberately kept from her before. It's a horrible, hard situation and I feel awful for the prospective mother, but I really think the surrogate mother is doing this out of concern for the kid. Having seen how growing up with a mentally ill mother has completely destroyed a few friends and some children I care about, I wouldn't be able to sacrifice a baby to another woman's wishes either, not when the choice and power and responsibility to protect the baby was mine.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for the wishes of prospective parents. At least, not when they are set against what a child is entitled. Children are entitled to grow up in a loving, stable home with parents prepared and capable of caring for them. Adults are not entitled to having children. Adults have no entitlements in this area, but the children do. I'm with the surrogate mother.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Adults are not entitled to having children.
A bit of an odd attitude for a Mormon, is that not?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I think there would (potentially) be a bond with the fetus that could cause a sense of loss and maybe grief upon separation.
Also, post-partum depression.
As opposed to parents who have (usually) been trying to get pregnant for years and years without success, and who are (more commonly than not) actually genetically related to the child (the surrogate usually is not)? I decided a while back that I couldn't go through the emotional trauma of being a surrogate. But to claim that they are more emotionally invested in the baby than the parents is, IMO, patently false in most cases.
I see what you mean - but I'd like to point out that I was talking more about risk than investment. I get the feeling that you would say the surrogate's clients are taking more of a risk for emotional trauma than the surrogate, and this isn't something I can argue with (haven't been there, can't quite imagine it) - so maybe this clarification is practically pointless.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: ... the woman with the baby in her tummy is the one with the most at stake - physically and emotionally.
Well, there is the baby as well. We can both guess what the kid would think (and disagree ), but if it were me in that position I would be pretty upset at being separated from my real parents against their will.
Who the "real parents" are in this case is not so clear to me. If a woman incubates and gives birth to a baby, she has a real claim of parenthood, IMO. So do the genetic parents.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not totally unsympathetic, but I just think that the surrogate's claim in general, is just too weak.
The actual decision for the creation of of a child (and the decision to be responsible for that child) lies with the parents. It is true that they need help from others, such as say the doctor conducting the in-vitro fertilization to implement the decision, but I wouldn't really say that the doctor has a claim, period. Now, it is true that the surrogate has devoted resources of a more personal nature, which entitles them to a claim in the first place. However, I still don't think it is very strong.
Additionally, especially in the OP, there are concerns that parallel the whole issue of international adoptions all over again. The child may potentially be isolated from their own race, uprooted from their own community, and be split from any relatives.
Some of these concerns are mitigated normally because there is the chance of living a better life but the deciding factor is that the parents did not want to keep the child. In this case, the parents very much want to, and the child is either going to grow up knowing that or will find out.
(Also, legally, in the case of a surrogate keeping the child, the original parents might still be liable to child support adding insult to injury. IIRC, even a sperm donor is liable for support after a recent decision)
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
katharina- I have not done any research on this case, but as it has been presented, the mother's condition is well controlled by meds and she is seeing a dr to ensure it stays that way. Denying her her child would be similar to denying someone with well controlled diabetes a kid.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
steven - no, it isn't. I am not talking about focus of life, but entitlement. Adults are not entitled to have children. There is no ledger where an adult is cheated of something they should have had if they don't get a chance to have a kid. It simply doesn't work like that - children are not the prize for a life well lived, a sign of a good person, or something anyone is owed.
The only person who is entitled to anything, the only person who is cheated if they don't get certain family members with certain traits, are the kids. And children are indeed entitled to parents that can give them a stable, healthy, to parents that are ready and capable and willing to take on all the responsibilities.
If the prospective mother doesn't have a child and she desperately wants one, I would feel bad for her on her behalf, but I would not consider her cheated out of anything she was due in the first place.
----
scholarette - that's where it gets fuzzy, because on the one hand I know there are good parents whose mental illnesses are controlled and who are a joy to their children, and on the other hand I know of several children, some still kiddos and some grown up, that have gotten screwed up and over because of their mentally unstable parents. I know this is going to be an unpopular stance, but barring serious allegations against the surrogate mother, I would trust the one that isn't on the mentally unstable edge.
I look at it this way - if it were my baby that I were giving up for adoption, do you pick the mother with or the one without a mental, uncurable, patchily treatable illness? The thing about mental illness meds is that it isn't like diabetes, where you can measure your blood sugar and insulin works right away. It isn't like once someone has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness and started seeing a doctor, everything is okay for now on. Considering how stressfull and life altering having children can be, being stable because of meds in one stage of life doesn't mean everything is under control and that isn't going to change.
This is NOT to say that people with serious mental illnesses shouldn't be allowed to have children, and it definitely, definitely isn't to say that those who have children should have them taken away. Nothing like that. It is to say that when that surrogate mother held the baby in her arms and couldn't in good conscience hand it over, to people who hid this information in the first place, and was willing and happy to raise the baby herself instead, I don't blame her.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not familiar with the show in question. Out of curiosity, what kind of medical opinions did they get and what mental illness did she have exactly? And who contributed the sperm?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
some sort of unspecified psychosis. She also has a record, but she passed a home study.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: steven - no, it isn't. I am not talking about focus of life, but entitlement. Adults are not entitled to have children. There is no ledger where an adult is cheated of something they should have had if they don't get a chance to have a kid. It simply doesn't work like that - children are not the prize for a life well lived, a sign of a good person, or something anyone is owed.
Whoah, whoah, back up the truck there, Bobby Sue. I seem to remember you defending the rights of the FLDS church to do their thing (14-year-olds having children with 50-year-olds) with great katharina-like fire and intensity.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But katharina, this is not an adoption. This is a woman who took at least 10k from these parents, promising them a child. 100% of the DNA came from the said parents and the woman took their money. I can't help but see this woman as a thief- she stole an egg, sperm and cash from this couple.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: But katharina, this is not an adoption. This is a woman who took at least 10k from these parents, promising them a child. 100% of the DNA came from the said parents and the woman took their money. I can't help but see this woman as a thief- she stole an egg, sperm and cash from this couple.
If this is the case I am thinking of, the DNA was donated anonymously and belongs to neither the adoptive parents or the surrogate couple:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: steven - no, it isn't. I am not talking about focus of life, but entitlement. Adults are not entitled to have children. There is no ledger where an adult is cheated of something they should have had if they don't get a chance to have a kid. It simply doesn't work like that - children are not the prize for a life well lived, a sign of a good person, or something anyone is owed.
Whoah, whoah, back up the truck there, Bobby Sue. I seem to remember you defending the rights of the FLDS church to do their thing (14-year-olds having children with 50-year-olds) with great katharina-like fire and intensity.
Wait wait wait, really? I don't think the FLDS has the right to do that...
Also, their culture is kind of... unhealthy. I feel bad for those poor women and children.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: Wait wait wait, really? I don't think the FLDS has the right to do that...
Also, their culture is kind of... unhealthy. I feel bad for those poor women and children.
Oh boy, here we go. I knew I shouldn't have brought that up.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sorry, but I've been reading a ton of biographies about FLDS women.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
steven, don't be an idiot. Or a liar.
--
scholarette, it wasn't their DNA.
That's the case I was referring to: the prospective mother was not a biological parent, nor was the prospective father. The DNA came from anonymous donors. There is no biological link to the babies on the part of the prospective parents. That makes a big difference. Also, the prospective parents didn't adopt them, which involves legal oversight.
Lots of things make someone a parent, but writing a check under false pretenses is not one of them.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: steven, don't be an idiot. Or a liar.
Really? That's actually how you're going to address me? What is this?
I'm not your dad, your husband, or your son. I don't deserve to be talked to like that, because we are not lovers, you don't wash my clothes, you're not my blood kin, and you didn't carry me for 9 months. I expect more civility from someone as intelligent and well-educated.
Do you still stand 100% behind every post you made there?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not talking to you. You are creepy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not your dad, your husband, or your son. I don't deserve to be talked to like that, because we are not lovers, you don't wash my clothes, you're not my blood kin, and you didn't carry me for 9 months.
Is no one else entitled to tell you not to be an idiot?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:This is a woman who took at least 10k from these parents, promising them a child.
This is misleading. It isn't legal in the US to pay someone to have your child. The surrogate mother was compensated for the medical expenses, that's it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I imagine that any surrogate situation, especially one like this, is going to be complicated, sensitive, and fraught with the possibility of heartache. The best - or possibly only - way to avoid tragedy is for all the parties to work together compassionately and remember that all of them love the child in question. And maybe stretch the idea of "family" to accomodate that.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Th lack of DNA does slightly change things, but reading the article, they were upfront about the woman's past, she has been mentally stable for 9 months and has a psychiatrist certifying that she is fit to be a mother and has never missed an appt. And the woman did not return the money or repay medical costs. If she returns all the money for costs and any gifts they may have given, then I will stop thinking of her as a thief, but I still don't think what she did was morally correct. If her cocaine use in the distant past was not an issue when she signed the contract and cashed the check, it shouldn't be an issue once she has the babies.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Things change once babies are carried and born. That's why birth parents have a window to change their minds, no matter what contracts they signed before the babies were born.
I think it is crappy and hard, but I don't think money makes one person more a parent than another. That implies that it is okay for people to buy children - it isn't.
When a birth mother keeps the baby instead of handing it over to the adoptive parents, she doesn't have to pay back any expenses paid during her pregnancy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: And children are indeed entitled to parents that can give them a stable, healthy, to parents that are ready and capable and willing to take on all the responsibilities.
If they are, then we as a society are doing a extraordinarily poor job of protecting children's rights. If children really are "entitled" to parents that can provide them a stable healthy home and who are capable and willing to take on all the responsibilities, we should be taking children away from all single parents, all people living below poverty level, all teenage parents, and anyone else who isn't providing a stable healthy lifestyle for their children.
I confident that isn't what you intend, but I'm at a complete loss to understand what you do mean.
This is a rather unusual case since no one involved is genetically related to the babies. The surrogate mother is the only one involved who has a biological claim to the children. Legally, the Kehoe's are no different than any other adoptive parents even though their involvement in the child's conception is unusual.
Since surrogacy contracts aren't legal in Michigan, the surrogate mother is legally considered the biological mother and must agree to the adoption. I understand its traumatic when I biological mother changes her mind about giving a child up for adoption, but what is the alternative? Forcing biological mothers to give up a child based on a verbal agreement?
Given the ambiguity of parenthood in this case, I agree with kat that the primary concern should be the well being of the children and not the prospective parents. But as best I can tell, the courts didn't even try to assess that question. Legal, this was simply a case of a biological parent deciding not to go through with an adoption and that is legally the biological parents right. Its pretty clear that Michigan law is inadequate when dealing with this unusual adoption situation, but the courts can't decide to make up laws because the existing ones don't seem to quite apply.
I'm very uncomfortable with the surrogate mother assessing whether or not the Kehoe's were fit parents, but I can see that a surrogate mother should have the right to decide for whom she will and will not make babies. Considering that she and her husband already have four children, they certainly understood the enormity of the commitment they were making when they chose to take this twins into their family. Right or wrong, it can't be a decision they made lightly.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know... it still strikes me as a bit wrong what they did and there's my this person is making me irritated senses to consider too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I mean that children are entitled to all of that. That does NOT imply, in any way, that children should be taken away from the parents they already have, nor does it imply that there should be
Entitled by moral law is not the same as being entitled by civil law. Lots of things that are morally wrong are supported by civil law, because civil law is inadequete fundamentally for many reasons.
In other words, I meant exactly what I said, and nothing more. Since keeping one's own biolgical children trumps almost all other considerations, immediate danger to children aside, often life is unfair and kids get worse parents than they should. Removing them, short of established, imminent dangers, is almost always worse.
The only case where this really comes up is when it involves non-biological children, and decisions must be made as to who will be the parents. In that case, the children are entitled to the home and family that is mostly likely to give them a stable, healthy upbringing.
In this case, it looks like there are conflicting stories. The prospective parents say that they were upfront from the beginning, and the surrogate mother (parents)say that they didn't know about the psychosis diagnosis and wouldn't have agreed if they did.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: If her cocaine use in the distant past was not an issue when she signed the contract and cashed the check, it shouldn't be an issue once she has the babies.
The surrogate mother claims that she did not know about either the mental illness or the cocaine use until the adoption hearing. The adoptive parents claim they told her. I don't know who's lying, I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. The adoptive parents mentioned it but did include the details. When the surrogate heard the details presented in court, she was sincerely surprised.
I can't see what motivation the surrogate mother has to lie. She has 4 children of her own. She has been a surrogate mother and given up the children previously. It was a decision she deliberated over for some time. I can easily believe she was honestly and sincerely concerned for the children.
The only thing that bother's me about the cases is what appears to be unwarranted prejudice against people with a history of mental illness. I don't know any details of this woman's medical history. There are certain types of mental illness that would be legitimate cause for concern and others that would not. In the absence of any other data, I think the woman's psychiatrist should be trusted to assess the situation. It seems like the surrogate mother was acting out of an unjust fear of all mental illness but perhaps she had observed things in this woman's behavior that we don't know about.
I find it a bit disturbing that this couple didn't use either the mother's egg or the father's sperm even though (based on previous miscarriages) they were not sterile. It seems like they were trying to create a designer baby. To me that was a bit of a flag that made me wonder whether the surrogate mother had other reasons to think the adoptive mother was unstable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I mean that children are entitled to all of that. That does NOT imply, in any way, that children should be taken away from the parents they already have, nor does it imply that there should be
Entitled by moral law is not the same as being entitled by civil law. Lots of things that are morally wrong are supported by civil law, because civil law is inadequete fundamentally for many reasons.
I still don't know what you mean by "entitled". If a person is morally "entitled" to something, doesn't that necessarily imply we have a moral obligation to give it to them? I know there is a difference between legal rights and moral rights, but shouldn't we be striving to legally protect peoples moral rights?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sometimes life isn't fair. And the right to keep one's own biological children trumps the children's entitlement to fabulous parents.
No adult is entitled to become a parent. However, parents have lots of rights concerning their children.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Perhaps you could try to define what you mean by "entitled" then.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Morally entitled. If children get parents that don't provide that stable, healthy home for them, they are getting a raw deal from the universe.
I think what you are tripping is assuming that civil should always follow morality. It doesn't and it shouldn't.
Lots of things are legal that are immoral, some of them shockingly so. They are legal because there are practical reasons (civil law and courts incapable of regulating), or maybe because there are competing moral claims, or maybe because we have collectively decided that some matters aren't the business of the state, or because it would be unenforcable.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Sometimes life isn't fair. And the right to keep one's own biological children trumps the children's entitlement to fabulous parents.
Huh?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
You still have explained what morally entitled means and why we don't have a moral obligation to give people what they are morally entitled to have.
I'm not tripping up over confusing what is civil and what is moral.
When the claim is made that an individual has a right or entitlement, it necessarily implies that someone else has an obligation. The two are inseparably linked. If you claim it's a moral entitlement, you imply a moral obligation. If you claim its a legal entitlement, you imply a legal obligation.
So when you claim that children are morally entitled to certain things, you necessarily imply that someone else has a moral obligation to provide those things.
If you were to say, children are morally entitled to receive certain things from their parents, it would be really clear what you are talking about. It would be equivalent to saying, parents have a moral obligation to provide their children with certain thing. I think we can agree that this is true.
What is very unclear from the way you have used entitled bears the reciprocal obligation. All of us, society as a whole, the legal system, God. Who is failing in their obligation if a child does not get that to which they are entitled? If parents fail to fill their obligation, does anyone else have any obligation to the children. If so, who?
In this situation where what we are trying to determine is who the "real parents' are, who has the moral obligation to provide these children with the stable healthy home you claim they are entitled to have?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The moral obligation means that parents have the obligation to create that environment for their children. It also means that when there is a child and there are not yet parents, the people with the power to decide are obligated to give the children the parents most likely to create that environment.
It means parents need to do the best they can, and to put the needs of their children to have that environment above their own desires, to every extent possible.
It also means that no adults who is not yet a parent has the right to a non-biological child.
It does NOT create an obligation for third parties to take away children from the parents they already have, nor does it trump people's parental rights over their own biological children.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Again, HUH?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sorry you can't understand. I've extended enough effort explaining. If you continue to be confused, you are welcome to read it again.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Uh, it's just that society with its laws has a right to take away a parent's rights if they are abusing a child and put that child in a safe environment. This is because biology isn't everything and the safety of that child is more important. So I'd say there IS an obligation to remove a child who is being abused, neglected or molested. Because it's worse on society not to do that! The safety of child to me is more important than a parent's rights.
BUT, there is the possibility of jumping the gun and discriminating based on mental illness.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Read all of what I said again. That was addressed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just as we have not yet worked out all the bugs from the transition of women from property to human beings with rights, we have not yet worked out the transition of children as property to human beings with some rights.
It is still delicate territory.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I don't understand why the couple decided to do surrogacy in Michigan in the first place. Most reputable surrogacy agency will only work with birth mothers in states that have surrogacy friendly laws. It seemed to me like the Kehoe's could have done a much better job of researching the legalities of the arrangement and saved themselves a lot of heartache.
It actually isn't that unusual to have surrogates carry a child that is not biologically related to the parents. There are a lot of additional cost to have eggs extracted and ferilized and a lot of instances where the quality of the egg is the problem in the first place.
My heart really goes out to both sides in this case. I think the surrogate really did change her mind last minute based upon incomplete informaiton provided to her. Legally she seems to be in the right and I understand how now 6 months later she is unwilling to consider giving the babies up. I know how attached I was after 6 months. I think the Kehoes need to recognize at this point that these babies are bonded to a mother and regardless of who was right initially its to late to change things. I hope if she is really stable, she can find another way to have a child.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:This is a woman who took at least 10k from these parents, promising them a child.
This is misleading. It isn't legal in the US to pay someone to have your child. The surrogate mother was compensated for the medical expenses, that's it.
Acutally, I'm fairly certain that this varies from state to state, as surrogacy is a state issue and not a federal one. In thesetwo articles discuss the legalities of surrogacy in both a current case, a famous early surrogacy case. This article, discusses the legality and illegality of surrogacy in various states including that several states do have legal surrogacy contracts.
quote:The Baby M. decision inspired state legislatures around the United States to pass laws regarding surrogate motherhood. Most of those laws prohibit or strictly limit surrogacy arrangements. Michigan responded first, making it a felony to arrange surrogate mother contracts for money and imposing a $50,000 fine and five years' imprisonment as punishment for the offense (37 Mich. Comp. Laws § 722.859). Florida, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Kentucky enacted similar legislation, and Arkansas and Nevada passed laws permitting surrogacy contracts under judicial regulation.
and
quote:In 1993 the California Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling declaring surrogacy contracts legal in California. The case, Johnson v. Calvert, 5 Cal. 4th 84, 19 Cal. Rptr. 2d 494, 851 P.2d 776, involved a surrogacy contract between a married couple, Mark Calvert and Crispina Calvert, and Anna L. Johnson. Crispina Calvert was unable to bear children. In 1990 the Calverts and Johnson signed a surrogacy contract in which the Calverts agreed to pay Johnson $10,000 to carry an embryo created from the Calverts' ovum and sperm. Disagreements ensued, and later that year, Johnson became the first surrogate mother to seek custody of a child to whom she was not genetically related.
It therefore varies depending on your state as to whether surrogacy, paid or otherwise, is illegal and most states still have no actual laws one way or the other.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: The child may potentially be isolated from their own race, uprooted from their own community, and be split from any relatives.
Well, that depends. I tend to think that "my own" community is the one I'm raised in, and my real parents are the ones who raised me, and so on. IMO, the community and the people that you have known your entire life, who have raised you and loved you, are the ones that you develop emotional ties with, and emotional ties are far more important than biological ones.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote: The child may potentially be isolated from their own race, uprooted from their own community, and be split from any relatives.
Well, that depends. I tend to think that "my own" community is the one I'm raised in, and my real parents are the ones who raised me, and so on. IMO, the community and the people that you have known your entire life, who have raised you and loved you, are the ones that you develop emotional ties with, and emotional ties are far more important than biological ones.
So true.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: I tend to think that "my own" community is the one I'm raised in, and my real parents are the ones who raised me, and so on ...
No. Remember the context is one of children that have yet to grow up, that have a choice as to which community and which ties to develop.
Now there was a time when international intercultural adoption *was* relatively colourblind. But in the light of how disastrous these kinds of policies were, priority is given to actual relatives, local adoptive parents, and adoptive parents from the same culture/region in this order.
For example:
quote:As the CEO of one of the nation's most experienced international adoption agencies, I am committed to doing what's best for orphaned children. When children lose their parents, it's always better for them to remain in their country of birth, provided that someone — a relative or adoptive parent — is able to care for them. It's only when kids have no options or opportunities for a family in their native countries that international adoption should be considered. ... It may sound counterintuitive, but I do hope for the day when all nations are able to adequately care for all of their children — even if that puts agencies like ours out of business.
Lillian Thogersen has adopted eight children internationally, and is the CEO of WACAP (World Association for Children and Parents), a nonprofit adoption agency based in Renton.
This issue comes up every once in a while after disasters too since demand is so high, for example in Haiti:
quote:There is also a risk that children could be caught in irregular adoption processes - a risk increased by the interest of families abroad who would like to adopt Haitian children orphaned by the earthquake. Haitian institutions also have a lack of capacity to determine the status of children and ensure their rights are protected Separated and unaccompanied children might wrongly be considered orphans.
International adoption should be a last resort, used only after domestic alternatives have been exhausted. The Haitian authorities must ensure children are not taken out of the country without the completion of formal legal proceedings for international adoption.
Family tracing should be a priority for the international community, the Haitian authorities and international aid agencies.
quote: But in the light of how disastrous these kinds of policies were
How were they disastrous?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
There are places were domestic adoption is looked down upon. Plus, many of those kids need homes right away. It's not really good for their psychological well being to be stuck in limbo for years due to folks on their high horses. Though, it is important to make sure a child that has living relatives that want them and will truly give them care they need are not deprived of that, it's hard to have much of a culture languishing in an orphanage.
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Th lack of DNA does slightly change things, but reading the article, they were upfront about the woman's past, she has been mentally stable for 9 months and has a psychiatrist certifying that she is fit to be a mother and has never missed an appt. And the woman did not return the money or repay medical costs. If she returns all the money for costs and any gifts they may have given, then I will stop thinking of her as a thief, but I still don't think what she did was morally correct. If her cocaine use in the distant past was not an issue when she signed the contract and cashed the check, it shouldn't be an issue once she has the babies.
Nine YEARS.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
sinflower: *shrug* It is pretty textbook stuff. As in here is a textbook link
Particularly the section starting with:
quote:Adoption professionals and parents gradually realized that recognition and celebration of the child's cultural heritage was healthier and more psychologically appropriate than the pretence that the child was "just like the parents" and that "adoption didn't matter." That these attitudes seem so odd today is a tribute to the shift in perspective over the past few decades.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
Does anyone else have a hard time understanding WHY someone would choose to hire a surrogate with donated eggs AND donated sperm to have a child, rather than adopting a child? I just don't get it. I can understand why parents would prefer to have their own genetic child as opposed to adopting one (even if I don't always agree), but I simply cannot understand why someone would want to grow a whole new unrelated child when so many other unrelated children already need parents. This, by itself, already makes these parents questionable in my opinion.
But back to the initial question of the legality and morality of surrogacy. I think alot of it depends on whether the surrogate is the genetic mother of the child or if she is using a donated embryo (which, hopefully, has at least some of the genetic material of the perspective parents). If the surrogate is the biological mother of the child, then I think paying her for the child is most definitely exploitation. Even if the only reason she conceived was to give the baby up, it's still buying her own child from her. On the other hand, if she is merely renting out her womb for a time, then I think doing think there's anything all that wrong with it, especially if she's had children before and knows what she's in for. In many ways this is no different from women being "wet nurses" in the past.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
DDDaysh- I would assume, and perhaps unfairly, that the parents screened potential egg and sperm donors. I once read an article that mentioned that an egg donor could make between $10,000-$20,000. This assumed proper hair color, high IQ, good BMI, etc. And then the sperm would come from one of those "genius" sperm banks. Though it is possible that she used a blood relatives so there was some genetic link.
Or she might have not wanted to go through all the hoops of adoption. My brother is trying to adopt right now and it is a lot of work. I also had a friend who was trying to adopt and had several parents back out on them, which was pretty hard on them. These parents might have heard horror stories about adopted babies being taken back by birth parents three or four years later and feared that as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Yep. Screening, albeit no genetic link.
quote:Working mostly over the Internet, Ms. Kehoe handpicked the egg donor, a pre-med student at the University of Michigan. From the Web site of California Cryobank, she chose the anonymous sperm donor, an athletic man with a 4.0 high school grade-point average.
On another Web site, surromomsonline.com, Ms. Kehoe found a gestational carrier who would deliver her baby.
Finally, she hired the fertility clinic, IVF Michigan, which put together her creation last December.
Personally, I lost quite a lot of sympathy for the couple once I found out they weren't biologically related. Now it is just a fight between a surrogate mother and prospective adoptive parents. *shrug*
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Working mostly over the Internet, Ms. Kehoe handpicked the egg donor, a pre-med student at the University of Michigan. From the Web site of California Cryobank, she chose the anonymous sperm donor, an athletic man with a 4.0 high school grade-point average.
This is the thing that really raises questions. Why didn't they simply want to adopt? They had to go through the adoption process any way and I can't imagine that find egg and sperm donors and a surrogate mother made that less complicated rather than more.
Why didn't they want to use their own eggs and sperm. Chances that they were both sterile seem unlikely at the outset and since they had 2 previous miscarriage I think we can reject that possibility.
It really seems like they weren't just seeking a child, they were trying to engineer a superior child and that bugs me a lot.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In related news, an article today:
quote:There is no fool like the one who wants to be fooled.
Professor David Smolin wrote those words in 2005 referring to adoptive parents in the Western world. Eager to believe they are saving orphaned children from poverty, he wrote, they are easily fooled into accepting laundered children from the developing world.
He knows first-hand how such a thing could happen.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:It really seems like they weren't just seeking a child, they were trying to engineer a superior child and that bugs me a lot. [/QB]
Why? Clearly that lady was interested in having an intelligent child -- and intelligence is a heritable trait. Why should her hope to have a child endowed with above average qualities bother you?
It's generally agreed upon by psychologists that intelligence is a heritable trait. Today, the cognitive elite overwhelmingly marries within itself, thereby producing more intelligent children that carry on the legacy. Women of all social strata have the option of increasing the chance of having an intelligent child by inseminating themselves with the sperm of an Ivy League grad or successful scientist. And unlike the previous centuries where a person of moderate intelligence could secure a decent life with a job in manufacturing, today our society is getting increasingly complex and a decent enough IQ is crucial to securing middle class status. Therefore, women trying to become pregnant by artificial insemination would indeed be well advised to prefer the sperm of an Ivy League grad to that of Tony the bricklayer.
The only problem is that there's no way such a woman could tell how attractive the father of her child is, because all they give her is a baby photo of him. Can the future handsomeness of a man be determined merely from a baby photo?
Posted by theamazeeaz (Member # 6970) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: [QB] Does anyone else have a hard time understanding WHY someone would choose to hire a surrogate with donated eggs AND donated sperm to have a child, rather than adopting a child?
To produce a child with superior qualities.
Also, to pretend to go through the process of pregnancy and waiting. It's fun to wait.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I would guess given the Kehoe's background they might not be eligible to adopt. I would think the prior drunk driving arrest and the mental health history would lead a lot of adoption agencies to turn them down and a lot of perspective parents to chose someone else to take their baby. While there are a lot of kids who need to be adopted, there is a short supply of healthy caucasion babies waiting to be adopted which is presumably what they were after.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I would guess given the Kehoe's background they might not be eligible to adopt.
Nonsense. This was an adoption, it had to be approved by the courts as an adoption so they were obviously eligible. They may not have been eligible by certain adoption agency standards, but there are many options for adoption. If they couldn't work through an agency, private adoptions aren't that difficult. I have friends who adopted 3 children through private adoptions in 3 years with almost no waiting time. These were all domestic adoptions, all newborns and 2 of the three were Caucasian. Cost is the primary barrier to private adoptions, which are more expensive than going through an agency, but still far far less expensive than surrogacy.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In super-creepy related news:
quote:At least 10 of the 33 Haitian children a group of American Baptists tried to take across the border into the Dominican Republic have parents, says the group taking care of them while the Haitian government investigates an alleged case of child trafficking. ... On Friday evening, a truck was stopped at the border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic. It was carrying 33 Haitian children, some as young as two months old.
The Baptist group said the children were going to a newly established orphanage – New Life Children's Refuge – in the Dominican Republic, where eventually 100 Haitian children were to be housed.
The Haitian government says the group had no approval and no documentation that would allow them to take the children out of the country.
quote:"They are very, very precious kids that have lost their homes and their families and are so deeply in need of, most of all, God's love and his compassion and just a very nurturing setting."
No relation to Westboro Baptist. Please don't confuse those nutcases with other Baptists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
westboro baptist is remarkably less equivalent to regular baptist than FLDS is equivalent to LDS
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
That comparison would probably be more informative if I was LDS or FLDS (not saying that you're wrong).
Stephen: Well, I'm more confusing those 'nutcases' with these 'nutcases' Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: That comparison would probably be more informative if I was LDS or FLDS (not saying that you're wrong).
Stephen: Well, I'm more confusing those 'nutcases' with these 'nutcases'
The YFZ ranch is FLDS.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Updates!
quote:The Dominican consul general Wednesday rejected the claim from an American church leader that she thought her paperwork was in order when she attempted to take 33 Haitian children out of the country, saying he had told her it was not.
"I warned her, I said as soon as you get there without the proper documents, you are going to get into trouble, because they are going to accuse you, because you have the intent to pass the border without the proper papers and they are going to accuse you with kids trafficking," Carlos Castillo said he told the group's leader, Laura Silsby, during a meeting Friday.
Four hours later, Silsby and nine other Americans were turned back from the border. They were arrested and taken to a jail in Port-au-Prince.
"This woman knew what she was trying to do was not legal," Castillo said.
A CNN reporter attempted to get reaction to Castillo's comment from the jailed Americans, but they would not discuss the matter, responding to questions by singing "Amazing Grace" and praying.
quote:But even before Laura L. Silsby and seven other Idahoans ended up in a Haitian jail accused of trafficking in children, Silsby had a history of failing to pay debts, failing to pay her employees and failing even to follow Idaho laws.
Silsby has been the subject of eight civil lawsuits and 14 unpaid wage claims. The $358,000 Meridian house at which she founded her nonprofit New Life Children's Refuge in November was foreclosed upon in December. A check of Silsby's driving record revealed at least nine traffic citations since 1997, including four for failing to provide insurance or register annually.
Looks like the leader at least had strong motivation to make some money quickly. Maybe not so 'nutcase' after all.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It also shows she has a habit of ignoring pesky little details like proper paperwork. Which I find much more likely than the suggestion she was in this for money.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, forgetting your register your vehicle for maybe a year or two is forgetfulness. Maybe forgetting to pay your employees once or twice is forgetfulness.
But the sheer length of claims, suits, and infractions seems to be to be somewhat more intentional. Plus, her foreclosure was just in December, a jury trial on February, and what seem to be two separate civil suits next week and next month.
Plus she was warned only four hours before attempting to cross the border that what she was doing was illegal. It is not unreasonable to wonder if she felt she had to take risks and cut corners in order to get back her house and pay off the lawsuits, possibly in order to save her business.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
There's no reason to exclude the likely possibility that she is both an attempted child trafficker and a nutcase.
Posted by JonHecht (Member # 9712) on :
I just want to comment that I think people in this thread are being a bit harsh regarding Clive. It is not the case that he is being irrational, as he certainly seems to be consistent in his reasoning, and does provide some form of justification for everything he says. It is merely the case that he is bring rational within a different epistemic framework than that under which most of us normally operate. So this is not to say that he is "stupid" or even wrong. He is simply acting from different starting assumptions.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My friends are in India now, their baby is born.
If you are curious about the process, check out their blog:
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: It is merely the case that he is bring rational within a different epistemic framework than that under which most of us normally operate. So this is not to say that he is "stupid" or even wrong. He is simply acting from different starting assumptions.
No, we had ample evidence that his starting assumptions were profoundly irrational, even in some parts completely delusional. And there's serious doubt he was even an honest personality (it's very likely more than one person posted under the name).
Then he got banned for trollin' so it's irrelevant anyway.
Posted by contents under pressure (Member # 12329) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Good friends of mine are doing it right now. And it does end up costing more than that. They have to fly to India to make the donation (they chose the father with the higher sperm count). They then have to fly back well before the due date, and stay for a couple of weeks after at a hotel.
The woman however is living very well. They Skype with her on a regular basis. She is married and has three children of her own. It sounds to me like my friends are being exploited more than she is. Adopting a baby in the States takes forever. Finding a woman to volunteer to take your baby privately here risks her coming back later and wanting the baby. Using a donated egg and a surrogate here costs so much more. India knows this and takes full advantage of the situation.
Interesting. Did your friends use an Indian egg donor?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)