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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather, restriction and stigmatization of prostitution as a conspiracy to increase the cost of sex
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
), but if it were me in that position I would be pretty upset at being separated from my real parents against their will. 
